Understanding Perceptions of Human- Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014.
Amy Couper
BJus (Hons) Queensland University of Technology
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Justice
Faculty of Law
Queensland University of Technology
2020
Keywords
Claims-making activities; Environmental activism; Environmental policy; Environmental protection; Human-wildlife conflict; New speciesism; News media; Post-domesticity theory; Pressure groups; Public opinion; Shark attack; Shark control; Shark hazard mitigation; Social problems; Wildlife conservation.
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. i Abstract
As recreational ocean use and human presence in shark habitat increases, there has been an increase in negative interactions between humans and sharks, despite declining global shark populations. This conflict between humans and these vulnerable keystone species, as well as the ways in which governments respond to these threats have been the subject of intense public and media scrutiny through recent years in Australia.
This research examines stakeholder perceptions of the spike in shark bite events that occurred in Western Australia (WA) between 2010 and 2013 and the policy response that sought to pre- emptively kill large predatory sharks in an effort to enhance bather safety. This policy response, known as the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014 (WA SHMDLP), was a trial policy that operated for a four month period, targeted white, tiger and bull sharks over 3m in length and resulted in the death of 68 animals, of which almost all were tiger sharks.
By using the Theory of Claims-making Activities, it is argued that claims-makers successfully created two distinct social problems, where the creation of the first social problem (increasing shark bite frequency in WA) contributed to the policy response that became the second social problem (pre-emptively killing large predatory sharks). It was revealed that the media played a significant role in influencing policy makers to respond to shark bite incidents through misrepresenting public sentiment and relying heavily on the use of emotive language to describe sharks and shark bite events. Alternatively, activists and the public used scientific and ethical arguments to inform their understandings of shark related threats and hazard mitigation policy. By incorporating a brief policy analysis of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, this thesis concludes that these two issues were successfully constructed as social problems by different groups of stakeholders who used different techniques to construct their claims and that, ultimately, neither of the conditions constructed as social problems represented as much of a threat to society as was argued by these groups.
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. ii Table of Contents
Keywords ...... i Abstract ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii List of Figures ...... v List of Tables ...... vii List of Abbreviations ...... viii Statement of Authorship ...... ix Acknowledgements...... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH ...... 1 1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION DRUM LINE PROGRAM 2013 - 2014 ...... 2 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION DRUM LINE PROGRAM 2013 - 2014 ...... 3 1.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 4 1.5 WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? ...... 5 1.6 CONCLUSION ...... 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.2 INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND SHARKS ...... 9 2.3 EXPLANATIONS FOR INCREASING RATES ...... 11 2.4 SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AROUND THE WORLD (AS OF 2015) ...... 12 2.5 THE ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF LARGE PREDATORY SHARKS, THE THREATS THEY FACE AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS ...... 22 2.6 HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF SHARK BITE INCIDENTS AND SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNIQUES ...... 30 2.7 ANIMAL ETHICS AND HUMAN CONCERN FOR MARINE FAUNA AND THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 35 2.8 MASS MEDIA AND THE ISSUE-ATTENTION CYCLE ...... 41 2.9 GAPS IN THE LITERATURE ...... 45 2.10 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTIONS ...... 46 2.11 CONCLUSION ...... 48 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ...... 49
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. iii 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 49 3.2 CONSTRUCTIONISM ...... 49 3.3 THE THEORY OF CLAIMS-MAKING ACTIVITIES ...... 53 3.4 CONCLUSION ...... 57 Chapter 4: Methods ...... 58 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 58 4.2 PHASE 1 – APPLICATIONS FOR DOCUMENTS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 (CTH)...... 59 4.3 PHASE 2 – PUBLIC OPINION ...... 65 4.4 PHASE 3 – MEDIA ...... 72 4.5 CONCLUSION ...... 75 Chapter 5: Results ...... 76 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 76 5.2 PART 1 – NARRATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 76 5.3 PART 2 – PUBLIC OPINION ...... 150 5.4 PART 3 – MEDIA ...... 173 5.5 CONCLUSION ...... 192 Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 193 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 193 6.2 OBSERVATIONS AND POLICY ANALYSIS ...... 193 6.3 SOCIAL PROBLEM 1 ...... 200 6.4 SOCIAL PROBLEM 2 ...... 216 6.5 COMPARISON ...... 238 6.6 CONCLUSION ...... 247 Chapter 7: Conclusion ...... 249 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 249 7.2 CONCLUSIONS ...... 249 7.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 253 Reference List ...... 255 Appendix 1 ...... 261
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. iv List of Figures
Figure 1 Submission Type Responses ………………………………………….. 69
Figure 2 Themes of Opposition ………………………………………………… 151
Figure 3 Pro Forma Submissions by Key Arguments………………………...... 152
Figure 4 ‘Alternative Recommended’ – Text Search Results………………...... 154
Figure 5 Animal Welfare – Text Search Results……………………………...... 156
Figure 6 Bycatch by Type – Text Search Results………………………………. 157
Figure 7 Disagreement with Policy Justifications – Text Search Results ……… 159
Figure 8 Ecosystem – Text Search Results…………………………………...... 160
Figure 9 Target Animals – Text Search Results………………………………… 166
Figure 10 Themes within ‘Other’ – Text Search Results ……………………….. 167
Figure 11 Non-English Submissions by Language………………………………. 167
Figure 12 Themes of Support……………………………………………………. 169
Figure 13 Newspaper Coverage by Location (SP1)……………………………… 174
Figure 14 Number of Articles per Month (SP1)………………………………….. 176, 212
Figure 15 Rhetorical Motifs (SP1)……………………………………………….. 178
Figure 16 Themes identified in the data (Warrants for SP1)…………………...... 179
Figure 17 Newspaper Coverage by Location (SP2)……………………………… 184
Figure 18 Themes identified in the data (Warrants for SP2)…………………….. 187
Figure 19 Leading Claims-makers (SP2)………………………………………… 190
Figure 20 Claims-makers by Groups (SP2)………………………………………. 191
Figure 21 A Timeline of Unprovoked Bite Incidents in WA (2000 – 2016)…….. 201
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. v Figure 22 Number of Articles per Month (SP2)………………………………….. 217
Figure 23 Timeline of Media Attention for SP1 and SP2……………………...... 238
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. vi List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth)…………… 62 Table 2 Comparison of rhetoric idioms between SP1 and SP2……………… 238
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. vii List of Abbreviations
ADO Animal Defender’s Office CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation EPA Environmental Protection Authority DE Department of Environment (Cth) DF Department of Fisheries (WA) DPC Department of Premier and Cabinet (WA) EDO Environmental Defender’s Office HIS Humane Society International ISAF International Shark Attack File IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LG Local Government MMA Marine Monitored Area MRBRC Margaret River Board Riders Club Inc. NSW SMP New South Wales Shark Meshing Program OEPA Office of the Environmental Protection Authority QSCP Queensland Shark Control Program TCMA Theory of Claims-making Activities WASG Western Australia State Government WA SHMDLP Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. viii
Statement of Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
QUT Verified Signature
Date: 29/08/2020
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. ix Acknowledgements
This research project would not have been made possible without the help of many people. Firstly, I would like to thank my Principal Supervisor, Dr Mark Lauchs, who has continuously mentored me all the way from my Independent Study as an undergraduate student. Mark has been a constant source of encouragement and advice over the last seven years. I would also like to thank Professor Reece Walters, who helped to ignite my interest in environmental policy through his Eco Crimes unit in 2012 and has continued to offer guidance and support through his expertise and invaluable advice. A further thanks to Dr Susan Fuller, who inspires me with her passion for wildlife and who invested her time into providing me with valuable feedback throughout my candidacy. I had an excellent supervisory team, for which I am immensely grateful.
For their unwavering support throughout my research, I dedicate this thesis to my family. I am grateful for my grandparents, Professor Robert and Diana Gregson, and parents, Kate and Patrick Couper, who taught me the value of education. It is to them that I owe my passion for learning. I am incredibly thankful for my husband, Will. He has been my rock, sounding board and biggest supporter through this journey. Finally, I would like to thank my children, Woodrow, Fergus and Billy, none of whom existed before this project began. The welcomed distractions they provided offered me relief when I needed it and they have given me all the joy and inspiration I needed to keep trudging on with this project. I have thoroughly enjoyed completing my PhD and it is to all these people, I owe my eternal gratitude.
I would also like to thank Queensland University of Technology for granting me with an Australian Government RTP Scholarship, which provided me with the necessary funding to complete this research.
Understanding Perceptions of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Policy Responses: An examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014. x
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH This research examines the perceptions of shark bite events and shark hazard mitigation techniques, held by the public, various government organisations, the media and other relevant groups by analysing the construction of two social problems that existed between 2010 and 2014 in Western Australia (WA). Chapter 1 of this thesis will provide background context for the development of the Western Australian Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program (WA SHMDLP) 2013 – 2014, which is a policy that was implemented to address an unusually high rate of fatalities from shark bites in WA between 2010 and 2013. This will be followed by a description of the policy and legal considerations and a brief explanation of the events that unfolded following the announcement of the policy.
Chapter 2 will review the existing literature around human-shark interactions, the ecological role of sharks and discuss the current threats these species’ face and conservation efforts in place to preserve them. It will also offer policy context for the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 by outlining shark hazard mitigation policies used in other jurisdictions around the world. Next, it will consider the existing literature concerning human perceptions of sharks, considering possible anthropogenic biases that contribute to modern perceptions of shark hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. Finally, this chapter will outline the aims of this research project and identify the research questions.
Chapter 3 of this thesis will outline the theoretical framework used to complete this project. This will consist of a detailed discussion about the Theory of Claims-making Activities (TCMA) and why this is an appropriate theory for this research. This will be followed by a discussion about the methods used to complete this research, in Chapter 4, and an outline of the subsequent findings in Chapter 5. Finally, Chapter 6 of this thesis will provide a discussion of the findings and how these compare to the existing literature in order to answer the research questions of this project.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION DRUM LINE PROGRAM 2013 – 2014 Western Australia has a relatively high international rate of shark bites to humans. Between November 2000 and August 2012, there were 22 confirmed shark bites in Western Australian waters (Orr, 2015). Beginning in 2008, the Western Australian Government began increased efforts in investigating ways to minimize the rate of negative interactions between humans and sharks. In this effort, the government declared that it would invest $22m AUD into addressing this issue up until 2015 – 2016 (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014). Between 2008 and 2012, approximately $13.6 million was dedicated to research into shark repellents, a tagging program and creating and implementing a WA Shark Response Unit (Stephenson, 2012).
Following a non-fatal bite to a surfer in August, 2012, a series of guidelines were released by the government that explained the circumstances in which it would kill specific sharks believed to pose a threat to recreational beach users (Orr, 2015). It was announced that $6.8 million of the $22 million, would be spent on a specific shark hazard mitigation program that would last for four years and would run parallel to existing beach evacuation and aerial patrol strategies (Stephenson, 2012). This money was spent on a combination of studying the feasibility of fixed net beach enclosures at popular swimming beaches, contributing to WA Surf Lifesaving equipment, continued research into sharks and shark repellents, community awareness programs and a program that allowed the Department of Fisheries (DF) to track, catch and destroy potentially dangerous sharks at their discretion (Stephenson, 2012). It was announced that, where previously the government had targeted large white sharks suspected of being responsible for bites, it would now pre-emptively catch and destroy all large white, tiger and bull sharks in the areas around popular swimming beaches (Stephenson, 2012).
This decision to change to a pre-emptive approach to catching dangerous sharks was in line with a change in the definition of ‘imminent risk’. The Director of the DF stated that the definition had been amended from ‘imminent risk’ referring to sharks that had been confirmed responsible for bite incidents, to sharks that were deemed dangerous but had not yet been responsible for biting a human (as cited in Orr, 2015). In January 2013, the DF issued the first catch-and-kill order in response to large white shark sightings south of Perth (Orr, 2015). This resulted in the catch of two tiger sharks that were 1.8m and 2m in length and released after being deemed not
Chapter 1: Introduction 2 dangerous (Orr, 2013). Following the failure of the first kill order and two further confirmed (one fatal) and one unconfirmed shark bite, in December, 2013, the WA Premier, Colin Barnett, announced the government’s intention to implement two designated marine monitored areas, otherwise referred to as ‘shark kill zones’ (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014, p. 11; Orr, 2013). This was the beginning of what was popularly referred to as the ‘WA catch-and-kill’ policy.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION DRUM LINE PROGRAM 2013 - 2014 The Western Australian Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Policy 2013-2014 (WA SHMDLP) commenced on January 25, 2014, in two Marine Monitored Areas (MMA) off the Western Australian coast (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014, p. 6). As mentioned above, this followed shortly after the fatal bite to a surfer in Gracetown in November 2013 (Department of Premier and Cabinet 2014, 6; Orr, 2015). The objective of this program was first and foremost to address the ongoing issue of public safety. It aimed to do this by offering: “increased protection to swimmers and surfers by reducing the chance of large, and potentially dangerous sharks entering coastal waters at popular swimming and surfing beaches during periods of highest use.” (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014, p. 13)
The two separate MMAs were handled by different parties, with the DF responsible for running the metropolitan zone, which ran along approximately 90km of coastline from north to south of the Perth region. The second zone was the responsibility of independent fishing contractors and extended a length of 80km of coastline in the south-western WA region, beginning approximately 200km south of Perth (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014).
The program was reportedly influenced by the success of drum lining measures taken off the Queensland and KwaZulu-Natal coasts (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014, p. 6). It aimed to target the three species of shark: the tiger shark, bull shark and white shark, and only aimed to destroy specimens 3m in length or longer. All specimens captured on drum lines were photographed and all data deemed relevant was recorded. All non-target shark species and target species less than 3m in length that were determined to be fit for release were tagged for scientific purposes. All non-target shark and other marine specimens that were captured and found to have
Chapter 1: Introduction 3 a high likelihood of post-release survivorship were released and all target sharks were destroyed and disposed of offshore within state waters (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014, p. 14). Firearms were the instrument used to destroy target specimens.
The drum lines used in the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 were comprised of two or three polyform buoys, a stainless-steel hook, and an anchor weighted with between 8 and 12kgs. Hooks were 25/0 size and were suspended 2m below surface level (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014). As many as thirty baited drum lines were set in either zone and were checked between 6am and 6pm every day from the beginning of January 2014, to the end of April the same year. This was because, as mentioned above, the program was only intended to be used in the most popular swimming months to reduce the financial and ecological costs. Overall, this program cost $1.28 million (Department of Premier and Cabinet 2014, p. 6).
1.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK The WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 required extensive consideration from a legal perspective due to the conservation status of its intended primary target species (white shark). As mentioned, the program intended to target white sharks, which is a species listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and listed in Appendix II of the international Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) treaty and Appendices I and II of the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS). In Australia’s effort to uphold their commitments to these agreements, white sharks are a protected species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 (Cth), which outlaws the killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping, or moving of this species without a permit.
Furthermore, a recovery plan to improve the population status of white sharks had recently been developed which had the main objectives of:
• “improving the population status leading to future removal of the white shark from the threatened species list of the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) • ensuring that anthropogenic activities do not hinder recovery in the near future, or impact on the conservation status of the species in the future.” (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013b).
Chapter 1: Introduction 4 Specifically listed under these broad objectives is the aim to minimise the impact of shark control activities on the white shark (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013). However, exemptions from this Act may be permitted under extenuating circumstances. Under section 158 of the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), persons may apply to the Minister for the Environment “for an exemption from a specified provision” and the Minister may approve this submission “only if he or she is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the provisions not apply in relation to the person or the action”.
In January 2014, the Premier for WA, Colin Barnett, submitted an application to the Federal Minister for the Environment for the exemption of shark protection measures outlined in the Species Recovery Plan for white sharks (Hunt, 2014). In this submission it was argued that it was a matter of national significance because of the value of the tourism industry that was suffering as a result the increased shark strikes in the area and that the safety of beach goers in Australian waters was a priority for the Australian Government (Hunt, 2014). Other factors that were considered were that the WA Government had not yet determined a successful non-lethal measure to enhance bather safety and would continue to conduct research in this area and the program would operate seasonally and run alongside other non-lethal measures in an effort to reduce its environmental impact (Hunt, 2014). The Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, approved this application by the WA Government for exemption from the white shark protection measures stated in the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth).
1.5 WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? Following the announcement of the Western Australia State Government’s (WASG) decision to implement drum lines off two areas along the WA coastline there was a significant amount of public and media attention given to this topic. This included two protest rallies in WA, drawing crowds of up to 6000 people (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014) as well as protest rallies in South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and New Zealand (Australian Associated Press, 2014). It also included: • “an appeal against the policy, which was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant; • a third-party referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) which resulted in over 20,000 submissions and a decision not to subject the program to an environmental assessment;
Chapter 1: Introduction 5 • a petition tabled in the Western Australian Parliament; • 12 Freedom of Information requests; • 28 Western Australian Parliamentary Questions, many with multiple sub questions; • 765 separate articles on sharks in local, state and national newspapers; • 1,100 radio news bulletins on sharks (Western Australia); • 850 radio talk back comments on sharks (Western Australia); • 290 television news items on sharks (Western Australia); • 286,000 emails and letters to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) on sharks (a significant number of which were pro forma emails); and • a significant number of postings on Twitter and Facebook on the government’s drum line strategy (some of which were offensive and contained personal attacks on members of the government and staff involved with the program).” (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014)
With regards to the submissions received by the WA EPA mentioned above, it is noted that over 12,000 were submitted via the EPA’s public submission forum (which will be discussed more in Chapter 4), which represent the highest recorded number of public submissions made to the WA EPA over a single issue (‘Conservation group says shark attacks are not affecting tourism’, 2014). Despite this overwhelming interest and apparent opposition to the suggested policy, the WA Government continued with the operations of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 until April 2014, when it was scheduled to suspend at the end of the peak ocean use period. The WA DPC determined that the 2013-2014 policy was successful and recommended the program be extended for another three years from 2014-2017. Minister for Fisheries, Ken Baston, declared that the program had successfully restored confidence in West Australians and contributed to scientific understanding of shark behaviours (Minister’s Office, 2014). He stated that he hoped the program would allow future generations to enjoy WA beaches without the ‘constant fear of shark attack’ (Minister’s Office, 2014). However, this proposal for the 2014 – 2017 period was assessed by the WA EPA, which recommended against the continuation of the program on the grounds that it had the potential to be environmentally harmful if continued.
Chapter 1: Introduction 6 Since the global criticisms of the WA Government for implementing drum lines in 2014, the WA Government has predominately adopted non-lethal measures of shark-hazard mitigation. In the 2014 - 2015 summer, the WA Government reached an agreement with the Australian Government, enabling them to take action when a shark was found to pose an imminent threat to the public, rather than proactively baiting for large sharks (Premier’s Office, 2014). In 2015, the WA Government appeared to prioritize research into shark deterrents and detection devices as potential methods of hazard mitigation, announcing that state funded research was yielding promising results (Premier’s Office, 2015a, 2015b). This was complimented by an increased focus on aerial patrols during the 2015 - 2016 summer period.
In 2016, Liberal Fisheries Minister, Joe Francis, announced a further $1.54 million funding towards real-time satellite linked detection receivers that would be used to provide information about the location of tagged sharks, as part of Western Australia’s integrated shark hazard mitigation program (Fisheries Minister’s Office, 2016). Following this, Federal Minister for Environment, Josh Frydenberg announced that he would be ‘open to’ using shark nets in WA (Mercer, 2016). In response, the Minister for Fisheries called on the Australian Government to conduct more research into white shark populations to inform shark hazard mitigation (SHM) techniques in WA, arguing that the WA Government would ‘default on the side of caution’ concerning endangered species (Mercer, 2016).
In 2017, the WA Government initiated a shark deterrent subsidy scheme, by which individuals could apply for a $200 rebate into personal shark deterrent devices (Minister’s Office, 2017). However, Federal Minister for Environment, Josh Frydenberg, called on the WA Government to implement stronger shark hazard mitigation techniques such as nets and smart drum lines, labelling their approach as ‘a series of haphazard measures with limited effect’ (Frydenberg, 2017). Frydenberg argued that ‘Blind Freddy’ could see that white shark numbers off WA had increased, which was followed by the 2018 findings of the CSIRO that the western population of white sharks in Australia had not increased (Minister’s Office, 2018). Again, the WA Government requested more federal funding into white shark population research. The WA Government experienced pressure from the Australian Government to implement ‘SMART’ drum lines off its coastline, in line with the NSW trials, which, following some resistance relating to operational costs and lack of research, they implemented in February 2019. The first
Chapter 1: Introduction 7 white shark was successfully caught and released offshore through this program in April 2019.
1.6 CONCLUSION As stated above, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was a highly contentious program, that generated a significant amount of media and public attention. This research aims to explore tensions that exist between shark conservation and public safety by examining the events before and after the announcement of this program to provide new insights into how stakeholders use different strategies to frame issues around human-wildlife conflict and public safety to influence policy makers. The following chapter will review the relevant literature, before considering any gaps in the literature and outlining the aims of this project. This will be followed by an explanation of the theoretical framework of project and the methods used to conduct the research, before outlining and discussing the findings of the project and drawing subsequent conclusions.
Chapter 1: Introduction 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter will explore the literature relevant to this research project. As this project aims to explain the social processes that contributed to the policy response to a series of shark bite incidents, this chapter will begin with a discussion about interactions between humans and sharks and the ways in which governments have responded to the risk of shark bite incidents around the world. This will help to provide an understanding of the context in which the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program (WA SHMDLP) 2013 – 2014 sits. Secondly, as this project aims to explain the negative responses to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, it is also necessary to briefly outline the ecological importance of large predatory sharks and the current threats they face. Finally, this chapter will review the current literature on human perceptions of sharks, shark related risks, and shark hazard mitigation techniques including possible explanations for these perceptions and the role the mp[edia can play in shaping government responses to shark related hazards.
2.2 INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND SHARKS Of the 500 species of sharks that exist worldwide, only 30 species are believed to be involved in incidents where a human has been bitten (Curtis et al., 2012, p. 479). In cases where the species responsible for a bite incident is ascertained, white sharks have been deemed responsible for the greatest number of bites to humans committed by a single species. However, this is not because they are responsible for the majority of global bite events, but rather, because of their easily identifiable physical features and distinct bite marks that allow investigators to determine the species responsible (Curtis et al., 2012, p. 481).
Curtis et al. (2012, p. 481) states that most shark bite incidents towards humans across the globe, are delivered by more common species of shark, such as the bull shark or black tip shark. However, this is disputed by Caldicott, Mahajani and Kuhn (2001, p. 448), who state that white sharks and tiger sharks, along with members of the Carcharhinis family are most frequently responsible for unprovoked bite incidents where a human is harmed. This is consistent with Australian data which states that 48% of all unprovoked shark bite incidents that occurred between 1900 and 2011 in Australian waters were perpetrated by a combination of white sharks,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 9 tiger sharks and bull sharks (West 2011, p. 764). Regardless of which species of shark is internationally responsible for the highest number of bite incidents, white sharks are considered the most dangerous species in that they are responsible for the most human fatalities resulting from shark bite events (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 482).
During the previous century, the frequency of white shark bite incidents alone has gradually increased, ranging from less than five reported incidents in the first decade of the twentieth century, to more than 60 in the final decade (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 481). This is supported by (Burgess, 2015), who states that global shark bite rates have consistently risen for over a century, with each decade proving to have more than the previous. However, this statistical increase may not reflect a true increase in bite frequency because the quality and frequency of reporting has vastly improved since initial reporting began (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 481). Furthermore, the rate of fatalities from white shark bites can be seen to be decreasing (from almost 100% to less than 20%), which does not represent a change in the nature of the incident, but rather, a change in the quality of medical attention available to victims (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 482).
Currently, the International Shark Attack File (ISAF), maintained by the Florida Museum of Natural History, has approximately 4000 cases of white shark bite incidents dating back to the mid-1500s (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 481). These files display clear trends in white shark bite incidents, demonstrating the majority (85%) of the 346 reported unprovoked white shark bite incidents since 1839 have occurred in Australian, South African and Western United States waters (Curtis et al. 2012, p. 482). Burgess (2015), curator of the ISAF, states that ‘unprovoked attacks’ on humans by sharks are defined as:
“Incidents where an attack on a live human by a shark occurs in its natural habitat without human provocation of the shark”.
This definition excludes aquarium divers, scavenging by sharks on human corpses, attacks on boats, attacks on spear fishers, those feeding sharks and those who initiate contact with the shark that attacks (Burgess, 2015).
The number of international unprovoked shark bite incidents reported by the ISAF in 2014 was 72, which was the lowest number since 2009, when 68 were reported (Burgess, 2015). The
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10 majority of these (52) occurred in waters off the coast of North America, with Australia (11) and South Africa (2) following, along with a range of other countries that had single incidents. However, Burgess (2015) states that it is important for researchers not to place too much value on short-term trends in shark bite statistics. This is because the short-term data is heavily influenced by a wide array of economic, oceanographic, meteorological and human social variables. This is further highlighted by the fact that the Australian rate of bite incidents in 2014 of 11 was down from the 12.5 average from the last decade and, as mentioned above long-term trends suggest a steady increase in bite frequency since the beginning of the twentieth century (Burgess, 2015).
2.3 EXPLANATIONS FOR INCREASING RATES There are various reasons attributed to being the cause of increasing shark bite incidents across the globe. However, there are four key theories that are most commonly acknowledged by the literature. The first of these is that an increase in the total number of humans has led to an increase in the likelihood of humans and sharks coming into contact with one another (West 2011, p. 751). West (2011, p. 751) states that the increase in shark bite frequency in Australia over the previous decade is comparable to the increase in the domestic Australian population and the international tourist population. This suggests that the increase in human population is responsible for the increased frequency of bite incidents. However, as population increases in previous decade have not produced the same increased frequency in bites to humans, other factors must be considered (West, 2011, p. 751).
The second reason for increasing rates of international shark bite incidents is that human behaviour has altered in a way that has led to increased shark bites (West, 2011, p. 751). The popularity of Australian coastlines has increased significantly for fitness and recreational activities over the previous decade, with increasingly more people taking up activities such as swimming, surfing, snorkeling, kayaking and SCUBA diving (West, 2011, p. 751). Burgess (2009) states that this trend is consistent with international statistics and supports the theory that social changes as well as population increases, may explain the recent international increase in shark bites to humans.
This means that increased frequency in shark attacks is a consequence of the increasing presence
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11 of humans in shark habitat for recreational purposes (Curtis et al., 2012, p. 481). According to Burgess (2015), the ever-increasing presence of humans in shark habitat vastly increases the opportunities for humans and sharks to come into contact with one another and therefore, have potentially negative consequences. This is supported by West (2011, p. 745), who states that shark bite trends in Australian waters show that majority of incidents over the past century have occurred in the most densely populated coastal locations. This is also consistent with findings from a study by Hazin, Burgess and Carvalho (2008), which identified an increase in shark bite incidents following major coastal developments in Recife, Brazil.
The third reason commonly considered as contributing to the increasing frequency of shark bites to humans is improved quality and frequency of reporting attacks (West, 2011, p. 751). As mentioned earlier, the quality and frequency of reporting shark bite incidents has drastically improved in the previous few decades (Curtis et al., 2012, p. 418). This means that, while these incidents have undoubtedly increased in frequency over the last decade, the actual increase may not be accurately represented by the statistics. Therefore, this theory does not seek to explain the increase, but rather, address the potential that the increase may be exaggerated by the statistics.
Finally, it is believed that an increase in the abundance of sharks across the globe is responsible for increasing rates of shark bites to humans (West, 2011, p. 751). However, the literature suggests that shark populations are consistently declining throughout the world (Shiffman, 2014, p. 299). Despite this, the rate of international shark bite incidents continues to rise. Furthermore, while there are currently no reliable estimates on the exact population health of white sharks in Australian waters, this species has been seen to be decline in Australia over the past 60 years (West, 2014, p. 6). Therefore, as this species is responsible for the most bite incidents in Australian waters, and the majority of other shark species are also in decline across the world, it can be assumed that increasing shark populations are not responsible for the increased frequency of unprovoked shark attacks on humans.
2.4 SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES AROUND THE WORLD (AS OF 2015) In order to combat the risks associated with increasing human presence in white shark and other potentially dangerous shark habitats, there are currently bather protection measures utilised by
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12 governments across Australian and international white shark habitats (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013b, p. 29). However, these mostly aim to prevent human-shark interactions through the use of increased surveillance, beach enclosures to protect swimmers or preventative beach closures following shark sightings and have little impact on the sharks themselves. This section will briefly discuss how other jurisdictions from around the world have dealt with the threat of shark attacks on humans. New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD) and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) have the three largest shark control schemes across the globe and are particularly important to outline because they were frequently cited by the WASG in its development and implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. New Zealand, Hong Kong, Brazil and Hawaii also implement or have previously implemented smaller scale bather protection programs. These programs, particularly the Hawaiian shark cull, the fixed shark barriers of Hong Kong and the catch-and-release drum lining program used in Recife, Brazil were all referred to by other stakeholders in the data collected for this research. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly discuss these shark hazard mitigation policies to provide policy context for the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and provide an understanding of the success or failures of other programs that were used to inform the claims- makers in the construction of the social problems that this research aims to examine. Due to the period of time that the research aims to examine, only shark hazard mitigation policies used prior to or simultaneously to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 will be discussed, as strategies utilized after 2014 fall outside the scope of this project.
New South Wales
New South Wales began its implementation of shark control meshing in Sydney in 1937 and utilized shark nets to minimize the risk of shark bite events (Paterson, 1990). Prior to this, New South Wales implemented non-invasive passive beach nets in the Coogee region (different from Coogee Beach in WA) that were designed to provide a completely fenced barrier against sharks for bather protection (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 1). There barriers were ecologically beneficial, as they were not designed to entangle marine species. However, these were discontinued due to logistical issues with strong currents and heavy surf. The New South Wales Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Policy (SMP), as of 2014, implemented seasonal netting at 51 locations along the NSW coastline. The seasonal aspect of this program was designed to address bather
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13 protection from September to April each year, in line with the increased ocean use from humans in the warmer months (Green, Ganassin, & Reid, 2009). This was an economically favourable feature of the SMP and also helped to reduce the environmental impacts that would come from year-round beach meshing. These nets had two purposes. Firstly, they aimed to deter sharks from entering densely populated swimming areas and secondly, they aimed to entangle sharks and cull local populations (Neff, 2012). In addition, the NSW SMP also used aerial surveillance to compliment the meshing. This involved aircraft surveillance designed to report potentially dangerous shark sightings and conduct other research objectives but was deemed relatively ineffective at sighting sharks and enhancing bather safety (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). The NSW SMP was estimated to cost $990,000 AUD in the 2009/2010 period of operation, making it more affordable to operate than the drum lining programs discussed below (Green et al., 2009, p. 25).
The NSW SMP targeted eight species of shark, including White Sharks, Dusky Whalers, Shortfin Makos, Bronze Whalers, Broadnose Sevengill Sharks, Bull Sharks and Tiger Sharks (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). Between 1950 and 2002, approximately 11,500 target shark specimens were captured and killed in these nets, of which only 3670 were of the four species that are considered most dangerous (the three previously listed as well as the oceanic whitetip whaler) (Reid, Robbins, & Peddemors, 2011, p. 681; Dixon, 2015, p. 2). During the 2014 – 2015 season of beach netting, the SMP reported interaction with 189 marine specimens, of which 77% were non-target species. Of the total number of animals caught in nets (189), only 73 were released alive (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). The non- target species were comprised of mostly rays and other shark species (136), but also included various marine turtles and common dolphins (9). Furthermore, it was reported that 23 of the specimens caught in the NSW SMP in the 2014 – 2015 season were identified as either threatened or protected species (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). Long-term research findings suggest that hammerhead sharks (a non-target species) have consistently been caught in nets most frequently and that bull shark and white shark catch rates have consistently declined over the past 60 years. Furthermore, of the top five most frequently captured whaler species targeted, bull sharks (the most dangerous) are caught the least (5%) (Reid, Robbins, & Peddemors, 2011, p. 681).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14 The NSW SMP had been identified by the Fisheries Scientific Committee as being a key threatening process to already threatened species as well as having the potential to cause species that are currently not threatened to become threatened (Department of Primary Industries NSW 2015, p. 1). The NSW SMP previously euthanized all potentially dangerous sharks caught in its nets. However, more recently, NSW had begun releasing sharks from nets if they were assessed as likely to survive post-release (Holmes et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2011, p. 667). Furthermore, in an effort to reduce the environmental impact of the SMP, a variety of measures were taken, including the use of seasonal netting and fitting acoustic warning devices to the nets to warn cetaceans away from them (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015, p. 2).
Despite these efforts, ongoing long-term data suggests that the annual catch of bull, tiger and white sharks, as well as the critically endangered grey nurse shark, in shark nets had decreased, suggesting there are unsustainable pressures placed on these species (Holmes et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2011). Finally, Dixon (2015) states that the bather protection enhancement offered by this program was minimal, as the nets do not act as a complete barrier to sharks. This means that sharks were regularly able to swim over, under or around the nets and is highlighted by the fact that approximately 40% of sharks entangled in NSW beach nets are on the coastal side of the net (Dixon, 2015).
Queensland
Queensland began implementing shark control strategies in its coastal waters in 1962. It was reported that in the 42 years prior to this, there were 26 shark related human fatalities in Queensland waters, compared to one shark related fatality off protected beached in the 24 years following the implementation of these strategies (Paterson, 1990). As of 2014, the Queensland Shark Control Program (QSCP) utilized a combination of baited drum lines and nets. This was decided in order to combat issues related to the suitability of either method in particular areas and shark species selectivity that may reduce the likelihood of particular species being removed from popular swimming areas (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006). These methods were used either singularly or in conjunction at 85 beaches along Queensland’s coastline, in approximately 10 distinct areas (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 39). This included 384 baited drum lines and 35 surface mesh nets that total approximately 6.5km of coastline. A
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15 combination of mullet and shark meat were used to bait the drum lines, with shark meat used as a measure to minimize the likelihood of dolphins being accidently hooked or scavenging meat and reducing the likelihood of catching target species (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 39). Unlike in NSW, target shark species caught in the QSCP continued to be euthanized (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 39). The intention of this program was to minimise the likelihood of negative interactions between sharks and humans occurring by reducing the number of sharks in the vicinity of dense populations of humans (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2006, 6).
Unlike the non-invasive methods that were used elsewhere for shark control programs, these techniques also posed a threat to other marine species, such as dolphins, whales, turtles, dugongs and other non-target shark species (Gribble, McPherson, & Lane, 1998, pp. 649–650). Paterson (1990) states that dolphins, dugongs, turtles and rays were the most frequently accidentally caught animals in the QSCP. Of the species that are deliberately targeted, tiger sharks were most commonly caught by the QSCP (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 39). Approximately 4757 tiger sharks alone were caught in the QSCP between 1993 and 2010, with 91% caught on drum lines and 9% caught in nets (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 40). Furthermore, Cliff and Dudley (2011, p. 706), Gribble et al. (1998), Paterson (1990) and Simpfendorfer (1993) suggest that drum lining Queensland’s coast had proven as a far more superior technique of selective shark fishing than beach meshing and resulted in substantially less bycatch. Despite this, there were still issues with dolphin and turtle bycatch on drum lines and none of the experimental measures designed to minimize the environmental impacts of this issue had been successful (Cliff & Dudley, 2011a, p. 708).
From 2004 to 2005, the QSCP cost approximately $1.7 million AUD in a combination of contract payments, bait, management, research and equipment, with the majority of costs associated with management, including administrative assistance, the project manager and training (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006, p. 6). While shark control programs appeared to be effective in Queensland, with only one shark related fatality on protected beaches since the program’s inception (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006), research suggested that tiger shark populations were either stable or declining at eight of the nine Queensland locations where there catch per unit effort (CPUE) has been analysed (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 41). This is an important factor because, as will be discussed in
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16 more detail below, tiger sharks are among the most resilient shark species, which suggests that the program was likely to have greater detrimental effects on less resilient species. Furthermore, the QSCP continued to place population pressures on threatened or endangered species and result in the accidental death of many other non-target species.
In addition to the gill nets and drum lines, several QLD local governments have previously installed exclusionary swimming enclosures. These were used in sheltered areas where surf conditions are calm and, as stated above, have reduced negative ecological ramifications. However, these were not available to protect surfers and divers or those who swim in exposed coastal areas.
South Africa
KwaZulu-Natal was the first South African Province to implemental bather protection measures and did so in 1952 (Cliff & Dudley, 1992; Holmes et al., 2012; Paterson, 1990). Beginning in Durban and extending along the coast of Natal, this was done with the use of netting. As of 2014, KwaZulu-Natal shark control measures compared to those used in QLD, in that they relied on a combination on netting and drum lining. Initially the drum lining was used much more minimally than in Queensland, with only 3 baited hooks in any one location (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006, p. 7). However, this slowly increased in response to Queensland research that favored drum lining over netting in terms of selective shark fishing (Cliff & Dudley, 2011a, p. 708). In 2011, it was estimated that the financial cost of the KwaZulu–Natal program was $7 million per annum. However, there were also the non-financial costs associated with unintentional loss of life of non-target species. These costs were justified through the confidence they provided to the domestic and international tourist populations in the province, which were estimated to bring approximately $1 billion per annum to the region (Cliff and Dudley, 2011, p. 708).
This program targeted 14 species of shark (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 2). Initially, it euthanized all sharks captured on drum lines and in nets. However, by 1989, all 14 species, including the three most dangerous (bull, tiger and white shark) were released alive (Cliff & Dudley, 2011b, p. 702). A 30-year analysis of the bycatch release rates of this policy revealed that just under half of
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17 all non-target species were found alive and subsequently released (Cliff & Dudley, 2011b, p. 702). After 26 years tiger shark catch data collected from this stretch of netted coastline, it was revealed that the annual catch per unit effort of this species had actually increased, suggesting a rise in species abundance (Dudley & Simpfendorfer, 2006; Holmes et al., 2012). Furthermore, research on the effectiveness of shark control measures in this province revealed that between 1990 and 1998, there were seven recorded shark attacks in protected areas compared to 46 in other eastern and western South African cape provinces that did not use bather protection measures (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006, p. 7).
Furthermore, Cliff and Dudley (2011a) and Dudley (1997) state that the beach netting improved bather safety by up to 90% between 1980 and 2011. However, despite their success at enhancing bather protection, nets were still criticised for the risk that they posed to cetaceans. In response to these criticisms, the program implemented the continued use of ‘pingers’ and alarms designed to deter cetaceans away from shark nets (Cliff & Dudley, 2011a, p. 708). This had been done despite the fact that research suggests that such devices can reduce the shark catch by up to 90% (Cliff & Dudley, 2011a, p. 708).
Hawaii
As domestic and tourism populations grew in Hawaii in the 1900s, along with recreational ocean use, the government implemented shark control policies. Between 1959 and 1976, the Hawaiian Government invested approximately $300,000 USD per annum into shark control initiatives designed to enhance bather confidence and safety by reducing the number of large sharks in the area of popular swimming beaches (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 855). A variety of measures resulted in the death of approximately 4600 specimens. These consisted of several different selective shark fishing initiatives intended to reduce shark populations and therefore, reduce the likelihood of shark bites events (Wetherbee, Lowe, & Crow, 1994, p. 101).
Wetherbee, Lowe and Crow (1994) and Shiffman (2014) state that the shark cull in Hawaii did not have an impact on the frequency of shark bite incidents. This is because sharks have a wide distribution and culling specimens who are potentially only passing through a popular swimming area will not deter other sharks from entering the area (Shiffman, 2014; Simpfendorfer,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18 Goodreid, & McAuley, 2001). Wetherbee et al. (1994, p. 112) state that gill netting had been considered in Hawaii, but was deemed too costly, especially considering the comparatively low rate of attacks in Hawaii compared to South Africa and Australia. Furthermore, as is an issue with Australian shark hazard mitigation techniques, exclusionary beach netting enclosures are not suited to Hawaiian waters because of the rough ocean conditions. As of 2014, there were no shark control strategies in place in Hawaii.
Brazil
More recently in Recife, Brazil, a new strategy was implemented that appeared to have promising results. This method was designed in response to a string of 55 bite events in the 19 years leading up to 2011 and increasing awareness of the ecological threats posed by shark hazard mitigation strategies in Australia (Hazin & Afonso, 2013, p. 287). This method involved the capture of potentially dangerous sharks on drum lines, their relocation and release in an area where they were deemed to be no longer threatening to swimmers (Hazin & Afonso, 2014; Shiffman, 2014). Non-threatening shark species caught on drum lines were released on sight and potentially aggressive species were placed in an on-board tank for transportation. Extensive measures were taken to reduce the trauma to animals being relocated and maximize post-release survivorship (Hazin & Afonso, 2013, p. 288). According to Hazin and Alfonzo (2014) this resulted in approximately 100% survivorship of relocated species, meaning that it was not detrimental to population health and had demonstrated a 97% decrease in shark bite incidents. Drum lines were chosen based on research that favoured the post-release survivorship and limited bycatch rates of drum lining over gillnets (Hazin & Afonso, 2013, p. 288).
Whilst this bather protection strategy appeared to be highly successful, it did have limitations (Shiffman, 2014). The main limitation identified by Hazin and Alfonzo (2014) was that this measure would become increasingly costly, depending on the length of the stretch of coastline it was implemented on. This was because in order to minimize capture related shark fatalities, drum lines must be checked regularly for sharks. Therefore, while drum lines are usually inexpensive, when applied to a stretch of coastline on a large scale, this method would quickly become costly because of the increased labour costs associated with frequent drum line checking that is required to minimise fatalities (Hazin & Alfonzo, 2014; Shiffman, 2014). This made what
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19 appeared to be a successful alternative from a bather safety and ecological perspective, less practical.
Hong Kong
As of 2014, Hong Kong utilized a fixed exclusion netting technique for bather protection (Reid et al., 2011, p. 676). This involved a fully enclosed beach area that aimed to completely prevent sharks from accessing designated swimming areas. These were installed in 32 locations along Hong Kong’s beaches (Government of Hong Kong, 2015). These fixed exclusionary nets were installed following a string of confirmed and unconfirmed shark bite incidents in the 1990s. These nets were not designed to entangle marine life and were therefore less environmentally detrimental. They were also highly successful at enhancing bather safety because they aimed to entirely prevent sharks entering swimming areas. However, they are only appropriate in calm coastal waters and, as mentioned earlier, were not suitable for NSW or most QLD waters because of the heavy surf conditions (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 1).
New Zealand
Similarly to NSW, New Zealand also implemented shark meshing off its’ coastlines, as of 2014. However, this was done on a much smaller scale than in NSW (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 1; Reid et al., 2011, p. 676). These were implemented in Dunedin in the 1960s following a string of bite incidents, believed to be perpetrated predominantly by white sharks, followed by bronze whalers and mako sharks (Dudley & Gribble, 1999, p. 855; ‘Story: Sharks and Rays’, 2012). There were approximately 44 reported unprovoked attacks on humans in New Zealand between 1952 and 2012 (“Story: Sharks and Rays”, 2012). However, following the implementation of the gill nets in Dunedin, there were no fatal incidents on netted beaches for over 30 years (Neff, 2012).
Despite what appeared to be successful at enhancing bath protection, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove that gill nets were the cause of this reduction in bite events (Benson, 2011). Associate Prof Mike Barker, from the Otago Marine Science Department stated that the gill-nets in Dunedin “do nothing except provide swimmers with an illusion of safety'' (as cited in Benson, 2011). In 2011 the Dunedin City Council reviewed its gill netting policies and
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20 subsequently decided to discontinue the program that was costing an annual $36,000 NZ (Benson, 2011; Morris, 2011). According to Dudley and Gribble (1999, p. 855), it is difficult to assess the long-term environmental impacts of the New Zealand bather protection beach meshing because accurate details were not kept regarding species capture since 1986. Despite this, it is estimated that the nets killed approximately 700 sharks since 1977 (Benson, 2011).
Conclusions for the effectiveness of shark hazard mitigation strategies utilized in other jurisdiction. In this section, various shark control techniques from other Australian and international jurisdictions have been discussed. Firstly, the aerial surveillance used by NSW has been deemed by research as ineffective at enhancing bather safety (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). Despite this, it does offer benefits associated with research and it does not pose a threat to other non-target species. Therefore, aerial surveillance may be complementary to other techniques, but cannot be considered successful, in itself, at enhancing bather safety. Secondly, Hawaii utilized selective shark fishing processes aimed at culling shark populations. While this did not pose any reported threat to other marine species, it was not proven to have any positive effect on enhancing bather safety and resulted in the decline of many shark species. Therefore, this strategy, whilst it no longer exists, cannot be considered successful, as it posed a threat to target species and was not proven to enhance bather safety. Fixed net enclosures were used in selective areas in QLD and Hong Kong and had minimal ecological impacts because they did not aim to entangle species and were successful in enhancing bather safety because they provide a complete barrier against large sharks. Although this technique appears successful, it is highly limited in where it can be used, which makes it a less practical option for surf beaches and beaches with little shelter from rough weather conditions.
The gill netting that was used in NSW, KZN, NZ and QLD has been heavily criticised for being non-discriminatory and having large-scale ecological ramifications against both target and non- target species. In addition to this, this technique of bather protection is not wholly effective in that it does not create a barrier between humans and sharks and, as stated above, sharks are almost half of the time, found on the coastal side of the nets. Finally, this technique is costly, as nets require regular maintenance. Therefore, this method of enhancing bather safety cannot be
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21 deemed highly successful because it does not prevent sharks from entering the vicinity of humans and has large ecological ramifications.
Finally, drum lining was used in KZN and QLD, with the aim of the QLD program to kill large predatory sharks in the vicinity of popular swimming beaches. This technique was favourable to gill netting, as it was more successful at capturing target species, but does not completely avoid unintentional bycatch. This method is relatively costly, as baits require regular checking and it cannot be considered successful in fully protecting bathers from sharks, as it does not prevent sharks from entering swimming areas. However, the altered drum lining technique used in Recife, Brazil, avoids the problems associated with baiting for the sake of culling. This is because it reduces the environmental impacts on both target and non-target species and has been proven to enhance bather safety by up to 90%. While this shark control measure appears to have successful, both ecologically and in terms of bather safety, it is more costly than traditional drum lining, which makes it difficult to apply on a large scale. Overall, though, it can be determined that this was the most successful shark control technique and gill netting was among the least successful at meeting objectives relating to both bather safety and environmental impacts.
2.5 THE ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF LARGE PREDATORY SHARKS, THE THREATS THEY FACE AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS Sharks are part of the Class Elasmobranchii, which refers to ‘cartilaginous fishes’ and also includes rays. They are carnivorous fish that range from 0.2m to above 20m in length and occur in all oceans, mostly inhabiting continental shelves (Ferretti, Worm, Britten, Heithaus, & Lotze, 2010, p. 1057). Some species of shark filter-feed (whale and basking sharks) and suction-crush their prey (carpet-sharks), while others use raptorial mechanisms to feed (white, tiger and bull sharks) (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057). Large predatory sharks play a crucial role in many marine ecosystems, as they are commonly generalist feeders, meaning that they can thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions as they have a varied diet (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057). This means that they have a limited impact on the population health of prey species and play a larger role in marine food webs than species that feed on fewer prey items. Furthermore, it means that large predatory sharks often have exclusive predation over other animals, including large marine mammals, reptiles and other elasmobranches (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 22 Large raptorial sharks, as apex predators, play a vital role in maintaining the health of the ecosystems in which they inhabit in two ways. Firstly, they help prey species to maintain genetically superior populations by preying on the weak, slow, sick or injured members of a population, allowing the healthy stock to reproduce and therefore, improve genetic superiority (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 5). Secondly, large predatory sharks are crucial for maintaining the balance within an ecosystem by keeping mesopredator and prey populations in check (Brook, Johnson, & Ritchie, 2012, p. 1279; Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 6). Mesopredators are species at the middle trophic level, which predate on species at lower levels but are also predated upon by apex predators (Bornatowski, Navia, Braga, Abilhoa, & Corrêa, 2014, p. 1587). Examples of mesopredators in marine environments include rays, seals and small sharks.
This top-down, trophic cascading effect is evidenced in a study that revealed that the reduction of large predatory sharks between Florida and Maine led to the increase in one species of ray, which in turn lead to the reduction of the rays food source: the bay scallop (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1065). This is the result of the prey of large sharks (rays) being freed from population pressures placed on them by apex predators (large predatory sharks) resulting in population increases that place excess pressure on lower trophic level food sources (Bornatowski et al., 2014, p. 1586). Furthermore, Ferretti et al. (2010, p. 1065) explains how the reduction of large predatory sharks in an ecosystem can also influence the behaviour of other species, particularly marine mammals and sea turtles by allowing them to remain in feeding areas for longer periods of time than they are able to when there is a greater threat of shark predation. Overall, large, predatory sharks play a crucial role in marine ecosystems for several reasons. However, the policy that this thesis aims to analyse only targets three species of sharks: white, tiger and bull sharks. Therefore, each of these species will be discussed in more detail below.
Great white shark ecology
White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are among the largest species of sharks inhabiting Australian coastal waters and have been reported to grow up to 7m in length (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 656). Because of their ability to maintain a constant temperature (Goldman, 1997, p. 423), this species is encountered in all seas, including cold temperate waters, but most commonly, in coastal temperate and subtropical regions (Bruce, 1992). White sharks migrate
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23 between coastal and oceanic waters (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057) and in Australia, are most frequently encountered in southern waters, but have been sighted as far north as central Queensland and northern Western Australia (Bruce, Stevens, & Malcolm, 2006; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013b, p. 10; Paterson, 1990, p. 151). Whilst their diets include other elasmobranches and telecosts (ray-finned fishes) (Cliff, Dudley, & Davis, 1989, p. 131), they are unique from most shark species in that adults primarily prey on pinnipeds (marine mammals) (Goldman, 1997, p. 428). White sharks are apex predators that produce few offspring, have a late age of sexual maturity and grow slowly (Kiska & Heithaus, n.d., p. 69).
Tiger shark ecology
Tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) occur in tropical and warm-temperate oceans across the world. With evidence suggesting that populations are comprised of individuals that maintain large home ranges and frequently return to specific areas (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 38). They can mature at approximately 6m in length and belong to the Carcharhinidae family (Ground Sharks) alongside blue, dusky, bull, blacktip, brown, silvertip, caribbean reef, gray reef and oceanic whitetip, and others (Cardone, 1994, p. 28). Tiger sharks commonly occur in their feeding grounds in shallow seagrass habitats on continental shelves, however, similarly to the white shark, this species also migrates between continental shelves and the open ocean (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057). Like most sharks, they are generalist feeders (Heithaus & Dill, 2002, p. 480; Heithaus, Wirsing, Dill, & Heithaus, 2007, p. 1455), with major prey items of this species commonly including sea birds, such as the pied cormorant, bottlenose dolphins and dugongs. Tiger sharks differ from many other large predatory shark species in that that have a relatively fast growth rate in addition to high rates of juvenile survivorship (Holmes et al., 2012, p. 41).
Bull shark ecology
Bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas), part of the Carcharhinidae family, are characterised by serrated teeth, a heavy body and a short snout (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 513; Werry, 2010, p. 6). Like most other large, predatory sharks, this is a long-lived species with low reproductive outputs and reaches maturity between six and eight years (Jenson, 1976, p. 542; Werry, 2010, p.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 24 6). Like tiger sharks, adult bull sharks are generalist feeders (Werry, 2010, p. 6). While it is believed that mullet play a large role in the diet of juveniles, the stomachs contents of adult bull shark specimens from around the world have revealed items such as other sharks, glass bottles, crabs, corn kernels, sea birds and even sloths (Cliff & Dudley, 1991, p. 253; Werry, 2010, p. 6). Bull sharks occur in sub-tropical and tropical waters circum-globally (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 513) and are unique from most shark species in that they are truly euryhaline. This means that they can freely migrate between salt and fresh-water habitats (Jenson, 1976, p.539; Werry, 2010, p. 4). As euryhaline elasmobranchs, bull shark habitat ranges from coastal marine habitats to far up rivers, beyond the influence of tidal action, into fresh water (Martin, 2005, p. 1052), and even into some freshwater lakes (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 513; Werry, 2010, p. 4).
Threats to large predatory sharks
Although the health of shark populations can be hard to measure, there have been consistent observations of declining populations across the globe for the last 60 years (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013b, p. 6). This is consistent with the fact that 25% of all shark species have been listed as threatened with extinction by the IUCN Red List (Shiffman, 2014, p. 299). Holmes et al. (2012, p. 38) states that the reason large predatory sharks are particularly vulnerable to threats is because of their low resilience to recover from population declines caused by low fecundity and late ages of maturity. In fact, one study revealed that the potential population rebound rate of 26 shark species ranged between 1.7% and 14% per year, with large coastal sharks existing at the lower end of the spectrum (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057).
There are a range of threats that are contributing to the global decline of most shark species. These include over-fishing, bather protection programs, habitat modification and eco-tourism activities, such as cage diving. In Australia alone, it is estimated that white shark populations have declined by 60% – 95% in the last fifty years, causing widespread concern for the species (Pepperell, 1992, p. 213; Woolaston & Hamman, 2015, p. 334). Although these estimates only concern the white shark, all large predatory sharks are likely to suffer from similar threats and most have the same inability to quickly replenish stocks following population declines.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25 Over-fishing
Over fishing is one of the leading threats to sharks and rays all across the world and particularly, the three target species listed above (Heithaus et al., 2007, p. 1455; Holmes et al., 2012, p. 39; Woolaston & Hamman, 2015, p. 334). Sharks are particularly susceptible to population declines from over-fishing because, as mentioned above, they have low reproductive rates, meaning that populations cannot easily recover from excessive population declines (Friedrich, Jefferson, & Glegg, 2014, p. 2; Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 7). One study suggested that sharks were approximately twice as vulnerable to commercial fishing pressures than bony fish species (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057).
Overfishing is the result of several factors, including elasmobranch mortalities resulting from accidental bycatch, deliberate targeted fishing for the shark-fin industry, traditional hunting and finally, illegal harvesting for the black market. Whilst the commercial shark industry in Australia is primarily for food, with 6000 tonnes of shark meat harvested annually, cartilaginous fishes are used across the world for medical purposes, and shark skins and bones used for leather, jewellery and curios (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 7). However, none of the species targeted in the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 are leading targets of this trade.
Last and Stevens (2009, p. 7) state that the value of shark and ray fins in the commercial market is as high as AUS $100 per kilogram for fishermen and up to several hundred dollars per kilogram in retail price. The demand for the legal and illegal trade in shark fins is highlighted by Werry (2010, p. 13), who states that approximately one million bull sharks are killed annually worldwide for their fins. Although almost all estimates regarding elasmobranch fisheries are likely to be underestimates due to the prevalence of under-reporting and failures to report (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057; Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 7). Furthermore, Last and Stevens (2009, p. 7) also list traditional hunting of the Australian Indigenous population as having an impact on elasmobranches in Australia. However, this hunting is mostly targeted at rays and not highly relevant to the species targeted by the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (2013b, p. 34) has reported that there are ongoing expressions of interest from the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 26 game fishing industry for a permit system for the tag and release of white sharks for sporting purposes. While hunters can apply for permits, the DSEWPC has not had any reports made to them regarding captures or interactions, despite the fact that evidence suggests that both have taken place. This suggests a lack of understanding, deliberate law evasions or species misidentifications on the part of the recreational fishing industry (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013, p. 34). Furthermore, science has yet to determine the overall harm caused by tag and release game fishing, as post-release mortalities and non-lethal stress and injuries caused to white sharks in this process has not yet been assessed (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013, p. 34). However, although there is a lack of scientific certainty surrounding the extent of the damage caused by over-fishing, the majority of research does determine over-fishing to be one of the leading threats to white, bull and tiger sharks.
Shark control programs
Shark control programs are another threat to sharks commonly listed in the literature. Shark control programs, which were discussed in more detail above, are designed to minimise potentially dangerous interactions between beach goers and sharks and usually consist of drum lines or beach netting. Unlike over-fishing, shark control programs are mostly aimed at the three species listed by the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Despite this, many other sharks, either of different species or juveniles who do not pose a threat to humans, have also been killed as a result of these techniques (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013a, p. 36).
In the 76 years that NSW has operated shark control beach netting techniques, many thousands of sharks have been killed with 1000 sharks alone taken off Sydney’s beach during the first 12 months of operations in 1937 (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013a, p. 36). The extent to which these techniques pose a threat to species survival is also highlighted by Holmes et al. (2012, p. 40), who states that 4757 tiger sharks were caught in QLD using a combination of drum lining and beach netting between 1993 and 2010. Furthermore, due to the coastal nature of their habitat, bull sharks are also particularly susceptible to population declines in areas where shark control techniques are in use (Werry,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 27 2010, p. 16). This is supported by the fact that Cliff and Dudley (1991, p. 253) noticed an ongoing decline in the average length of bull sharks caught in beach netting off the coast of South Africa, suggesting that the large individuals had been removed from the local population of the species. Finally, although white shark numbers continue to decline, an average of 16 specimens are caught in QLD and NSW netting each year, which demonstrates an ongoing threat to a population that is sparsely located and not well equipped to deal with overcoming population declines (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013a, 38).
Habitat modification/urbanisation
Habitat modification is also widely acknowledged as posing an immediate threat to sharks, on a global scale. Bull sharks are particularly prone to population declines as a result of habitat modification. This is because, as mentioned above, they mostly occur in relatively close proximity to the coastline, in estuaries and freshwater systems; all of which are prone to rapid urbanisation on a global level (Werry, 2010, p. 11). Often, these habitat modifications consist of using natural estuaries for waste dumping, land reclamation, aquaculture ponds and dredging for the development of marinas and residential canals. Furthermore, mangrove habitat is commonly removed for the development of coastal real estate. Although the extent of these effects on sharks is not entirely known, it is known that mangroves are crucial to many marine ecosystems and their destruction may have significant impacts throughout the trophic levels (Werry, 2010, p. 11). The threat posed by habitat modification is also relevant to other large shark species, including the white shark and tiger shark, which are known to utilise near-shore environments for the development of juveniles (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2013a, 42). Overall, the literature suggests that ongoing habitat modification does pose a threat to all three of the species targeted by the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Eco tourism
Eco-tourism for white shark viewing, including cage diving, occurs across global white shark distributions. Eco-tourism for white shark viewing has existed since the 1970s in Australia and currently exists exclusively at the Neptune Islands off South Australia (Bruce & Bradford, 2011,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 28 p. 34). According to some studies, burleying for white sharks only has very minimal temporal and spatial impacts on the specimens involved (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013a, p. 44). However, Bruce and Bradford (2011, p. 34) and Bradford and Robbins (2013, p. 17) suggest that these studies are not reliable and that frequently rewarding white sharks by luring them with burley may lead to unintended long-term behavioral impacts in the species and their role within an ecosystem. Therefore, while the full ecological consequences that eco-tourism has on white sharks is unknown, it is suggested that it does have the potential to pose a real threat to the species. However, this only poses a threat to white sharks in Australia, as there is little demand for cade diving with either tiger or bull sharks.
Conservation efforts
There are a range of international efforts and national laws designed to protect species which require increased attention from a conservation perspective. The conservation of sharks is a complex issue that requires coherent international strategies, alterations in worldwide fishing regulations, tailored conservation tools, and improved data on species ecology and catch reports in order to be effective (Friedrich, Jefferson, and Glegg 2014, 2). The IUCN Red List is commonly regarded as the most comprehensive list of threatened species on an international level. It aims to guide the development of conservation laws through providing evidence on the conservation status of plant and animal species across the globe (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2015). According to the IUCN Red List, white sharks are considered to be ‘Vulnerable’ to extinction and both tiger sharks and bull sharks are considered to be ‘near threatened’.
CITES is an international treaty, which requires signatory nations to develop and enforce laws that align with its conservation requirements. CITES uses an Appendix system with which it lists species according to their conservation status. Appendix I is used to control the illegal trade in species threatened with extinction, Appendix II is used to control the illegal trade in species that are not necessarily facing extinction but that may if their trade is not regulated and finally, Appendix III is used by signatory countries who wish to request the regulation of the trade of a species within that country (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 2015b). White sharks are the only target species listed on a CITES appendix
Chapter 2: Literature Review 29 and are listed on Appendix II (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 2015a). White sharks are also the only target species listed by the CMS and are listed on Appendix I and II (Convention on Migratory Species, 2015). Whilst these international efforts exist in an attempt to conserve remaining shark populations, there are currently no legally binding international agreements surrounding shark conservation (Friedrich, Jefferson & Glegg, 2014, p. 2).
In Australia, white sharks are protected under federal laws and under separate laws in each of the states. Under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth):
“..it is an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep, or move any member of a listed threatened species on Australian Government land or in Commonwealth waters without a permit. The EPBC Act also requires that any action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on a threatened species must be referred to the Department of the Environment for assessment before the action goes ahead.” (Environment, 2008).
The DF in Western Australia has a strict ban on the recreational fishing of white sharks and places regulations on the recreational fishing of bull and tiger sharks. It allows for a maximum catch of 3 ‘large pelagic fish’ (which includes tiger and bull sharks, along with several other species) per fisher per day and sharks must be a maximum of 700mm in length to avoid over fishing of larger specimens (Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries, 2015, p. 25). Although there are a range of international, national and state level laws surrounding shark conservation, it is widely acknowledged that shark conservation is not a high priority on the international conservation and management agenda. This is highlighted by the fact that the potential ecological and socioeconomic consequences of their declines are becoming increasingly well known, along with their current vulnerabilities (Friedrich, Jefferson, & Glegg, 2014, p. 2).
2.6 HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF SHARK BITE INCIDENTS AND SHARK HAZARD MITIGATION TECHNIQUES Understanding the ways in which humans perceive sharks, shark related hazards and shark hazard mitigation techniques is critical to this research project. Furthermore, in order to understand how pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA was successfully constructed as a
Chapter 2: Literature Review 30 social problem, it is necessary to review the literature regarding how humans have come to perceive animals as having their own intrinsic value. Therefore, this section will begin by reviewing the current literature on human perceptions of sharks before discussing some principles of animal ethics and some theoretical explanations for why humans are concerned with the welfare of sharks and other marine creatures in WA.
The public perception of sharks, with regards to how to address the issues surrounding human- shark interactions, is not homogenous and ranges from immense support in favour of conservation to negative preconceptions that hinder that development of conservation efforts (Friedrich, Jefferson & Glegg, 2014, p. 2). Sharks are often considered to be amongst the most feared animals in the world, despite the fact that the risk of drownings, surfboard injuries, and stingray and jellyfish injuries are statistically far more likely to result in harm to humans than a bite from a shark (Curtis et al., 2012, p. 478). Despite this and the fact that many members of the public support shark conservation, (Neff & Hueter, 2013, p. 65) state that the words ‘shark’ and ‘attack’ when put together, are still some of the most fear laden, emotionally provocative words in the western world.
Curtis et al. (2012, p. 478) suggest that increased media coverage and public attention surrounding shark bite incidents tends to place increased pressure on local governments and other relevant agencies to respond to the issue of bather safety. This often leads to policies designed to kill sharks in order to promote beach safety. This is supported by Friedrich, Jefferson and Glegg (2014, p. 5), who also suggest that the way that sharks are portrayed in the media may influence the public perceptions that surround sharks, alternately, with increasing conservation minded coverage promoting increased support for shark conservation from the public.
Some research suggests that the role the Australian media plays in the public’s perceptions of sharks may have a more negative impact on shark conservation than other countries. For example, in a comparison of media coverage of sharks between 2000 and 2010 in the US and Australia, Muter et al. (2013) found that the Australian media reported shark bite incidents and comments from politicians more frequently and comments from scientists less frequently than the US media. This led to a more negative portrayal of sharks by the Australian media than in the US. Furthermore, Neff (2014, p. 117) stated that sharks, opposed to human factors, seal
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31 migrations or weather conditions were framed as the main problem leading to shark bite incidents in the Australian media in 2000, with the primary solutions including punitive measures against sharks. In this study, the most frequently suggested solutions by the media to addressing shark related hazards were lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques.
Neff and Hueter (2013, p. 65) argue that the term ‘attack’, as favoured by the media, is misleading to the public as it implies intent to cause harm on behalf of sharks and is even used to describe incidents where humans and sharks do not make physical contact. This terminology is counter-productive to shark conservation as it misrepresents the science around human-shark interactions and negatively portrays them to the public (Neff & Hueter, 2013, p. 65). Therefore, as the media plays a large role in shaping public opinion of sharks, it is important that this terminology be re-classified (Neff & Hueter, 2013, p. 65). It is noted that this research project uses the term ‘shark bite incident’ instead of ‘shark attack’ in acknowledgment of the loaded nature of this term.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, many governments, including in Hawaii, NSW, QLD and KZN continue to, or have previously implemented policies that aim to kill sharks. Neff (2014, p. 108) argues that the method of implementing policies that kill sharks in unselective ways is a common approach to addressing shark related hazards. Although policies designed to kill sharks following shark bite incidents tend to claim to be addressing public outcry, they are often strongly influenced by the media’s portrayal of the incident and the tourism industry (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 545).
Furthermore, Neff and Yang (2013, 547) and Neff & Wynter (2018, p. 7) suggest that public opinion surrounding sharks is far more sophisticated than is commonly suggested in media coverage and policy responses to shark bite incidents. This was tested in a South African study that measured the difference in public perceptions surrounding sharks before and after a shark bite incident. In this study, it was revealed that a negative human-shark interaction did not have any significant bearing on the overall public perception of sharks (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547). They suggest that shark bite incidents may not provoke negative feelings towards sharks from the public that would encourage the policy responses that follow these events and aim to kill sharks (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547). This was also found in a study that examined Australian
Chapter 2: Literature Review 32 perceptions towards sharks following bite incidents. Neff and Wynter (2018, p. 7) found that, in both WA and NSW, the majority of the public opposed lethal shark hazard mitigation measures but that governments continued to be pressured by sensationalised media coverage of shark bite incidents that reported a ‘demand for action’ on behalf of the public. These findings were consistent with those from Simmons and Mehmet (2018), who found greatest levels of support for drones and Clever Buoys compared to lethal methods such as mesh nets when examining perceptions of shark hazard mitigation techniques used in NSW. Additionally, Crossley et al. (2014, p.154) found that recreational ocean users in Australia had a relatively good understanding of shark hazard mitigation measures and Gibbs and Warren (2015, p.116) found that Western Australia beach goers accepted personal responsibility for mitigating their risk of shark bite by adapting their practices.
While some research suggests that the Australian public generally perceives sharks favourably, other findings suggest the Australian public might perceive sharks more negatively than the public in other locations. Research has revealed that the public in South Africa and the United States reacted favourably towards policies focused on human factors contributing to bite incidents but shark bite incidents in Australia appeared to reinforce negative perceptions of sharks, further contributing to the implementation of lethal shark hazard mitigation policies (Neff, 2014). Furthermore, in Australia it appears that the public response to shark bite incidents and subsequent policy responses can escalate very quickly, with single bite incidents being perceived as normal but multiple incidents in a short period of time being perceived as a ‘crisis’ (Neff, 2015, p. 115).
One theoretical explanation for the more negative way in which the Australian public might perceive sharks is that they are suffering from the Jaws Effect. The Jaws Effect refers to the way that fictional representations of sharks in popular media, specifically the 1975 movie ‘Jaws’, which are used by political actors to explain real life events (Neff & Hueter, 2013). The Jaws Effect causes people to adopt false notions, such as that sharks intentionally hunt humans, that human-shark interactions are always fatal and that the only way to overcome shark related threats is to kill sharks (Neff, 2015, p. 116). Neff (2015, p.123) suggests that the Jaws Effect played a role in the implementation of shark hazard mitigation policies in Western Australia between 2000 and 2014, including the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. It was found that the WA
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33 government used the well-known storyline from popular media to place the blame for shark bite events on individual sharks following the series of shark bite incidents that occurred. While there is limited research into the social processes that contributed to the implementation of this specific policy, this study is highly relevant to the research because it provides a theoretical explanation for what may have influenced the WA Government in implementing this program.
Alternatively, a study conducted by Friedrich, Jefferson and Glegg (2014, p. 4) on public perceptions of sharks in the UK revealed that the majority of members of the public that participated had overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards sharks, and sharks were often described with words such as ‘misunderstood’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘fascinating’. In this study, it was revealed that even though 26% of respondents associated sharks with fear and danger, the large majority rejected the idea of finning sharks and agreed that sharks should be protected because of their ecological value, with 94% opposed to the idea of killing sharks in response to the danger they pose to humans (Friedrich, Jefferson & Glegg, 2014, p. 2). Although this study only measured the public perception of a small group of the public and was conducted in the UK, it does suggest that public perception is generally in favour of sharks and does not support bather protection policies that lead to shark deaths.
Furthermore, the increasing popularity of the cage-diving industry, where tourists pay to swim in a submerged metal cage surrounded by large predatory sharks, particularly white sharks, is also an indicator of the public perception of sharks. In 2014, the cost of a four-day cage-diving holiday in Mexico was as high as $2,900 US, with the entire industry estimated to be worth approximately $314 million US annually (Richards et al., 2015, p. 200). Overall, this supports the research mentioned above, in that the public perception around sharks is largely positive and that humans do gain enjoyment from large predatory sharks.
More recently, there has been a shift in attitudes towards dealing with shark hazard mitigation, where more emphasis is placed on preventing the ways that humans contribute to these negative interactions. Neff (2014, p. 108) lists several examples of this, such as prohibiting surfing off particular beaches in Brazil and swimming with seal colonies in Cape Cod and limiting the numbers of licensed commercial cage diving operators in South Australia. However, this focus on the human factors that contribute to negative bite incidents was not the approach adopted by
Chapter 2: Literature Review 34 the Western Australian Government in 2013, when they announced the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014.
This shift in attitudes is consistent with the backlash that the WA Government received following the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. This might be explained by the emergence of a ‘Save the Sharks’ movement, as described by Pepin-Neff and Wynter (2018, p. 228). This movement refers to an increasing public acceptance of alternative messages about sharks to those that blame sharks for negative human-shark interactions which has resulted from new mobilizations of actors working to protect sharks following shark bite incidents (Pepin-Neff and Wynter, 2018, p. 223; Neff & Wynter, 2018, p. 7). These actors include international scientists, who are increasingly campaigning against environmentally irresponsible policies, as well as the public, conservation groups and celebrities. It is suggested that increasing awareness of the endangered status of many sharks, as well as a shift away from the idea that sharks intentionally prey on humans has resulted in more public support for non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques. This is consistent with the argument that public awareness of the need to protect vulnerable shark species is relatively new (Pepin-Neff and Wynter 2018).
2.7 ANIMAL ETHICS AND HUMAN CONCERN FOR MARINE FAUNA AND THE ENVIRONMENT Historically animals were not considered a part of the human moral circle. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant believed that animals were removed from human moralities because they were not rational or autonomous beings (Kant, 1997, p. 240). However, abuse of animals was considered socially unacceptable because it leads to moral corruption and influences one’s ability to uphold their moral code among other humans. Some modern philosophers have removed the ‘rationality’ criteria from their assessments of whether or not humans are morally responsible for wild animals, focusing instead on whether or not animals are capable of suffering (Singer, 1985).
In recent decades, society has paid increasing attention to the moral positioning of wild animals. As human populations grow, human development increasingly impedes on the natural environment and the species that live in it (Swart & Keulartz, 2011, p. 186). Urban development, transportation, and tourism have all lead to the contamination, destruction and fragmentation of wild animal habitats. Swart and Keulartz (2011, p. 190) state that animals are increasingly being
Chapter 2: Literature Review 35 recognized as having their own intrinsic value and that humans are morally responsible for their wellbeing. However, this has predominantly been applied to domesticated animals that are within the care of humans and not expected to survive on their own.
It is argued that, while the intrinsic value of domesticated or captured animals causes humans to be morally responsible for their welfare, the intrinsic value of wild animals does not result in human responsibility for their welfare (Swart & Keulartz, 2011, p. 190). This means that by respecting the intrinsic value of wild animals and their wildness, humans have agreed on a non- intervention approach, although this can lead to reduced welfare. This is because, in adopting a non-intervention approach to valuing wild animals, humans have therefore agreed that they are not responsible for the wellbeing of the individuals within wild species (Norton, 1995; Verhoog, 1999, p. 105). However, the non-intervention approach to dealing with wild animals does not account for the increasing infringements of the habitats of wild animals. For example, implementing drum lines of the WA coastline is not consistent with a non-intervention approach.
The first consideration of intrinsic value of animals in legislature can be seen in the Dutch Flora and Fauna Bill of 1997, which states:
“it is desirable to bring together the disparate statutory rules concerning the protection of wild species of flora and fauna in a single Act, particularly with a view to improved harmonization of the rules, in the interest of the protection of those wild species of flora and fauna and, where it applies to species of fauna, also of the recognition of the intrinsic value of the animals concerned”.
The term 'intrinsic value' has been used in several ways in animal ethics literature. However, Smith (2016, p. 2) and McShane (2007) use it when discussing the intrinsic value of species, to mean non-derivative value. This means that something has value simply in itself as an end, rather than because it has value in 'virtue of relation it has to some end' (the means to an end), as is the case with something with derivative value (Smith, 2016, p. 2). O’Neill (1992) states that intrinsic value can be used as a synonym to non-instrumental value, meaning that a species holds value without being instrumental in achieving something else. Instrumental value may, for example, refer to aesthetic value, ecosystemic value or economic value (Smith, 2016, p. 7). With regards
Chapter 2: Literature Review 36 to this research, white sharks may hold instrumental value for several reasons, such as for their role in maintaining ecosystem health or as an eco-tourism attraction. However, this species may also have intrinsic value, which would be expressed through concern for the species that are separate to those such as ecosystem collapse.
There is a distinction between the intrinsic value of a species and the intrinsic value of the organisms within that species. Species preservationists believe that it is the responsibility of humans to preserve species' (Smith, 2016, p. 7). In doing so, preservationists may promote the death of individual organisms within a species if it is beneficial to the overall chance of survival for the species as a whole. In this research, this might be represented through a distinction in arguments in favour of an individual sharks' right to life, compared to species preservation arguments that focus on preserving white sharks as a species, because of their endangered status. Smith (2016, p. 117) discusses the competing moral considerations in preserving endangered species. He suggests that, while humans ought to preserve endangered species because of their own intrinsic value, sometimes the harm caused to humans by a species might override the moral obligation to do so. This is also particularly relevant to the research, in that white sharks are endangered, yet also responsible for the death of humans.
The principle of the equal consideration of interests is relevant to how humans consider animals in their moral circle. According to Singer (1985), any being capable of feeling pain has an interest in avoiding pain and therefore, these interests should be given equal consideration to the interests of others. This principle is used to argue that, just as sexism and racism are immoral, so is speciesism. Speciesism is a concept that refers to the lack of rights and discrimination against non-human animals based on their species. The term was coined by Ryder in 1975 who defined it as “prejudice or biased attitude favouring the interests of the members of one's own species against those of members of other species” (Ryder in Regan, 2007, p. 138). Animal abuse is a symptom of speciesism and is any act that contributes to the pain, suffering or death of an animal (Beirne 1999, p. 121). Given that the WA SHMDLP sought to catch and kill sharks, consideration of speciesism is appropriate for this research. However, traditional speciesism typically groups all non-human animals together, while preliminary findings in this research suggest that consideration of the interests of animals was demonstrated but that the level of consideration was not equal among the animals harmed by drum lining.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 37 In considering why some animals are valued more than others, new-speciesism may offer an explanation. There are three types of speciesism, including old speciesism that precludes all non- human animals from rights, new-speciesism that precludes some animals from rights but includes others, and finally, non-speciesism, which advocates equal rights for all non-human animals (Jacobs, 2005, p. 444). Jean Moore (2013, p. 12) further explains new-speciesism in that humans tend to rank the value of non-human animals based on their genetic closeness to us, as well as the roles they play in our lives. This means that humans are more likely to value the lives of primates and other mammals, especially companion animals, over rodents or other vermin and creatures very genetically different from us, such as insects, fish or reptiles. Therefore, new- speciesists are likely to argue that chimpanzees are more deserving of rights than bees (Jacobs, 2005, p. 444). According to new-speciesism, the order in which animals are ranked by humans can depend on several factors other than their genetic closeness to humans. For example, an endangered conservation status may be ranked more highly than an animal that is not endangered. This relates to the research because preliminary findings suggest that the animals that the public expressed the most concern for in drum lining were dolphins (mammals, therefore genetically close to humans) and great white and grey nurse sharks (endangered species).
Furthermore, the concept of charismatic species relates to this research. As stated, new- speciesism argues that people tend to place increased value on animals recognised as endangered. Conservation programs around the world have adopted species known as ‘charismatic species’ to represent their campaigns. Spellerberg (2014) states these are “species with popular appeal and that tend to attract wide support for protection against environmental change”. Species used for this purpose tend to be selected based on a range of traits that they possess, including how rare, beautiful, impressive, endangered, cute or dangerous they are perceived to be (Albert & Courchamp, 2018). It is noted that dolphins and great white sharks are recognised as charismatic animals, with Albert and Courchamp (2018) listing them within the top 20 most charismatic species in the world, in terms of their representation as the faces of conservation campaigns.
The difference that the genetic closeness of animals to humans contributes to the way humans perceive animals is reflective of the ways in which humans use race and other differences to influence their perceptions of different groups within society. Indeed, Cohen (2001: 74) states
Chapter 2: Literature Review 38 that while nearness is used to promote sympathy, difference is used to create social distance between groups within society. With reference to speciesism, Sollund (2017, 81) argues that maximising the perceived difference between humans and animals is a tool that allows for humans to justify the inhumane treatment of animals because ‘difference legitimates exploitation’. This strategy of ‘maximising the difference’ is important for the construction of social problems and has outcomes in policy and government. Governments have a history of exploiting the human tendency to categorise different groups of people, and in this case, animals, into groups that justifies the dominance of some groups over others (Schneider and Ingram 2005, 4). Sollund (2017, p. 83) offers fish as a perfect example of how humans use difference to justify harm. Their unfamiliar features and the environment they live in are so starkly different to humans and the human environment that behaviours that result in the harm and suffering of fish, for example catch and release fishing, are often considered humane. Given that the WA Government used a catch-and-release approach on bycatch for the WA SHMDLP and that animal welfare was not a strong focus within policy documents, this is particularly relevant.
Post-domesticity is another theory that can assist in explaining the increasing focus on the moral positioning of wild animals. This is a theoretical account of the era following domesticity, that was created by Richard Bulliet in 2005. Domesticity refers to the era in which animals were considered a part of daily life and describes the social, economic and intellectual characteristic of the communities within this era (Bulliet, 2005, p. 3). Whilst domesticity is still prevalent in many rural and developing regions of the world, society has begun to shift away from this phenomenon following industrialisation and increased human populations living in cities and urban areas. Therefore, post-domesticity applies to these communities.
Post-domesticity is defined by two key characteristics. Firstly, those within a post-domestic society are extremely physically and psychologically isolated from the animals which are used for the production of meat and clothing. Whilst they maintain very close emotional relationships with companion animals, they never experience the sexual conduct or slaughter of the animals they depend on for products (Bulliet, 2005, p. 3). The second characteristic of post-domestic society is that these people continue to utilise the products that come from these animals. However, the industrial processes that are used to transform living animals into non-living,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 39 useable products are associated with feelings of guilt, shame and disgust (Bulliet, 2005, p. 3).
Bulliet (2005, p. 14) suggests that because post-domestic societies are removed from the bloodshed resulting from hunting and slaughtering animals, the idea of bloodshed has become more emotionally provocative than it previously was in the era of domesticity. Therefore, there are a range of rationalisations used to justify the continued exploitation of domestic animals used for production, including the idea that they have been bred by humans to serve a purpose and therefore, humans have the right to continue to exploit them for that purpose (Bulliet, 2005, p. 20). Because these rationalisations only applies to domestic animals, post-domestic culture awards wild animals the right to life and considers their hunting, trapping or slaughter to be cruel, unnecessary and even primitive and barbaric (Bulliet, 2005, p. 20).
This theoretical account of human perceptions of wild animals is relevant to the proposed research because, as Bulliet (2005, p. 37) suggests, countries including Australia, along with the UK and the USA, are at the forefront of the post-domestic era. Therefore, this may have played a role in the way that the WA public reacted to the death of sharks in the WA SHMDLP 2013- 2014. Furthermore, the social reactions that occurred following the televised footage of sharks, as wild animals, being killed as a result of the ‘catch-and-kill’ policy, clearly fit with Bulliet’s (2005) explanation of post-domestic society and may help to explain the controversy that followed the implementation of this policy.
As human populations continue to expand, human-wildlife interactions will continue to become conflicts. The IUCN World Parks Congress states in Madden (2004, 248) that human-wildlife conflict occurs “when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals or threaten or kill people”. Human wildlife conflicts are complex and frequently involve direct conflict between humans and wildlife, as well as human-human conflicts that exist between different groups of people who place different values on the species at the centre of the conflict (Crossley et al. 2014, 154; Draheim et al. 2015). For example, dolphin swim tourism in Hawaii has resulted in conflict between government, local communities, operators and fisheries over economic, legal and ethical dilemmas (Weiner 2015). While this differs from this research, in that the species and
Chapter 2: Literature Review 40 the centre of the conflict in WA was responsible for direct harm to humans, similarities can be drawn, in that there appeared to be obvious conflict between NGO’s, tourism operators, scientists and government, as well as the direct conflict between sharks and bathers.
The permeation of physical boundaries that separate humans and wildlife plays a role in the development of human wildlife conflicts. These boundaries are both structural, such as walls and fences and figurative, such as the borders of a national park that are designed to separate wild animals from humans (Frank & Glikman 2019, 3). This relates to this research because, while the habitat of dangerous shark species is starkly different from where humans live, the increasing value placed on Australian beach culture means that humans are increasingly inserting themselves into the habitat of sharks. This means that policy makers need not only to consider the physical boundaries that separate human spaces from animal spaces, but also the socially and culturally constructed boundaries when seeking to avoid human-wildlife conflicts (Skogen et al. 2019, 147).
Addressing human-wildlife conflicts is essential for the success of conservation projects that focus on the species at the centre of conflicts (Madden 2004, 249). Madden (2004, 253) recommends that conservationists and policy makers need to collaborate in addressing human- wildlife conflicts and use an applied research approach. Additionally, these conflicts should be addressed through multi-level training programs that include NGO’s, policy makers, and the public and the utilization of more ‘out of the box’ thinking. Ultimately, the management of human-wildlife conflicts would be vastly improved if policy makers were more proactive in using research (Madden 2004, 253). This recommendation is especially relevant to the research because preliminary examination of the data suggested that a lack of scientific evidence supporting the WA SHMDLP as an environmentally sound method of enhancing bather safety was one of the leading criticisms of the program.
2.8 MASS MEDIA AND THE ISSUE-ATTENTION CYCLE As stated previously, the media plays a large role in how people come to perceive sharks and shark bite incidents as well as how governments are pressured into responding to shark bite incidents. Therefore, the following section of this chapter will conduct a deeper review of the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 41 literature relating to the media’s role in influencing policy makers. This is relevant because this research aims to examine a policy response to perceived public outcry resulting from increased shark bite frequency in WA between 2010 and 2014. This section will also clearly link to the theoretical framework of this project that will be discussed in the following chapter.
Best (1995, p. 22) argues that common sense can recognize the importance of the media in constructing a social issue through its ability to elicit emotion from an audience. Furthermore, Spector and Kitsuse (1977) argue that sensationalized mass media coverage of an issue is a crucial component in the construction of social problems. While the media can invoke political change and policy action on its own, it is more likely to be acting on behalf of other parties or stakeholders (Best, 1995, p. 31). In this research, this may refer to the tourism industry, the government, the public, or the scientific community, in either of the two competing claims.
There is a relationship between the amount of focus given to an issue by the media and the perceived importance of the issue to the public audience (Protess & McCombs, 1991, p. 2). According to Protess and McCombs (1991, p. 2), the public’s perception of the important issues of any given day are influenced by the day-by-day judgements of journalists who are responsible for selecting and displaying news stories. The way that the news media is able to draw attention to specific political issues is known as agenda-setting and is restricted by the media’s ability to cover a limited number of stories each day and the need for these to be deemed ‘news worthy’.
Once the news media has decided on a topic to present to its audience, the issue is presented to allow for public attention, thought and discussion, before a public opinion is formed. Therefore, agenda-setting is the first stage in the formation of a collective public opinion (Protess & McComb 1991, p. 3). Protess and McComb (1991, p. 3) argue that while the news media is responsible for determining which issues are brought to the public’s attention, they are not necessarily responsible for influencing individuals feeling about specific topics. However, the news media is capable of presenting specific imagery to its’ audience and, according to Lippmann (1991, p. 13) the only feeling that a person can have about an event that they have not experienced themselves is the feeling aroused by their mental image of the event.
This means that while the news media cannot control the feelings of the public, they can describe
Chapter 2: Literature Review 42 events or display images of events in ways that influence the mental images conjured up by the audience. This is important because the media has its own interests and perspectives and can have extreme biases when presenting stories (McCombs & Shaw, 1991, p. 25). An example from this research project that will be discussed in the following chapters is how the media was able to portray sharks as ferocious man hunters in the construction of the first social problem, then portray them as helpless victims of drum lining in the construction of the second social problem.
There has been limited research into the specific role that the media has played in the development of shark hazard mitigation strategies in Australia (McCagh, Sneddon, and Blanche 2015, p. 271). However, some findings suggest that the media uses emotive language to frame shark bite events which leads to increased public anxiety about shark related hazard that directly influences policy makers to develop hazard mitigation strategies (McCagh, Sneddon, and Blanche 2015, p. 275). Furthermore, when several shark bite incidents occur within a short period of time, the increased media coverage of these events frames shark behaviour as threatening and results in the public having an exaggerated perception of the of dangers associated with recreational ocean use (Sabatier and Huveneers 2018, p. 338).
The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’ is used to describe public engagement with news stories. Downs, (1972) describes this as when a problem suddenly “leaps into prominence, remains there for a short time, and then – though largely unresolved – gradually fades from the centre of public attention”. In order for the Issue-Attention Cycle to influence governments and create change, public interest must remain focused on a specific issue for just long enough to generate enough political pressure for policy-makers to develop policy solutions to the problem (Downs, 1972). Furthermore, a condition that is caught up in the Issue-Attention Cycle will only be harmful to a small minority of people (Daw, Morgan, Thompson, & Law, 2013, p. 67), as was the case with shark bite incidents off the WA coast.
Public interest in an issue does not necessarily reflect a change in the conditions or a true crisis. However, it is more likely to be a symptom of the systematic Issue-Attention Cycle, by which public interest is peaked, then subsides as boredom with the topic increases (Downs, 1972). Downs (1972) states that there are five stages to the Issue-Attention Cycle. Firstly, in the ‘pre- problem stage’ a harmful condition exists but is yet to capture the public’s attention. While some
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43 people or groups may be aware of it, it is not yet in the collective public eye. This stage, with regards to this research and the first social problem of shark bite incidents in WA, would refer to the fact shark bite incidents had been occurring off the WA coastline for many decades prior to peaking public interest in 2013. Secondly, ‘alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm’ refers to the stage in which the public become aware of and alarmed by the condition that is perceived harmful. This is incorporated with an enthusiastic effort to overcome or solve the problem. Downs (1972) suggests that the second stage is often triggered by a dramatic series of events that captures the public’s attention. This is consistent with arguments outlined by Best (1995, 19) in the next chapter. With the case of shark bite incidents in WA, this could be seen to occur with the series of bite incidents that occurred over a short time period.
The third stage of the Issue-Attention Cycle is ‘realizing the cost of significant progress’. This stage relates the public realisation that overcoming the problem would involve significant cost to the public, or large groups of people (Downs, 1972). These costs can be financial, or they may relate to other sacrifices that would need to be made. For example, in WA, there was a cost to the taxpayer in implementing drum lining and the environmental costs associated with drum lining appears to have sparked the second social problem that this research aims to examine. The fourth and fifth stages, the ‘gradual decline of public interest’ and the ‘post-problem stage’ respectively, refer the increased public boredom in the issue, where it is lost from the public attention, despite the fact that the condition is likely to continue. The fourth stage is usually caused by the public becoming bored with the problem or disillusioned or threated by the costs of solving it, to which the media responds by quickly shifting their focus to a new issue (Daw et al., 2013, p. 67). As will be discussed in the following chapters, in the case of WA, once the drum lines were removed the public discussion about shark bite incidents died down, despite the remaining risks.
This Issue-Attention Cycle is expected to have played a role in the events that occurred in WA that lead to the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014. However, while this theory may be relevant to the research, it is not a theory that can be adequately tested without systematic collection of public opinion data, to allow for the five stages of the cycle to be tested (Daw et al., 2013, p. 65). As this data is unable to be collected, either due to not existing or not being achievable to obtain within the constraints of this project, this theory has only been used to briefly inform the research about media representation of problematic conditions and how it intertwines with social
Chapter 2: Literature Review 44 constructionism. Furthermore, McComas and Shanahan (1999) argue that the medias role in the social construction of an issue has more to do with the publics’ focus on the issue than the processes through which it came to be in the public eye.
In addition to the role that the media plays in constructing social problems, the media is recognised in the literature as playing a crucial role in agenda setting and policy making within government. As well as the ways mentioned previously, the media plays a role in policy making by informing the public about policies and conveying public opinion about policies back to governments. With regards to this research project, the role of the media in informing both the public and politicians and shaping discourses about shark bite incidents and drum lining must be examined. According to Soroka, Lawlor, Farnsworth and Young (2012, p. 2), the media can effectively set political agendas by choosing how frequently and consistently to distribute stories about certain topics. Because politicians rely on media cues to prioritize information and the attention they are able to give to any one topic at a time is finite, they tend to be focused on issues that are in the public eye, which is beneficial to both their constituents and their careers. Therefore, this research must examine the discourses used in the media surrounding the construction of shark bite incidents as a social problem to determine how the media may have contributed to the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014, in response.
2.9 GAPS IN THE LITERATURE It is necessary to recognise the importance of shark hazard mitigation policies because of their ability to impact endangered shark populations, undermine existing shark conservation laws and influence public perceptions of sharks (Neff, 2014). Specifically, understanding shark hazard mitigation in an Australian context is important because three states either continue to, or have recently implemented lethal shark hazard mitigation policies (Neff, 2015, p. 115). Furthermore, as human populations continue to grow, increasing the number of people who engage in recreational ocean use, the frequency of negative human-shark interactions is likely to increase.
Neff (2014, p. 110) states that there are gaps in the literature on public perceptions of sharks and policy responses following shark bite incidents. Furthermore, there is an urgency in the need to understand the social processes that contribute to the development of shark hazard mitigation policies. This is because negative interactions between humans and sharks are likely to increase,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 45 placing increased pressure on governments to address the risks posed by sharks to bathers at the same time that global shark populations continue to decline at an alarming rate.
The importance of understanding the pressures placed on policy makers to respond to predator species who threaten human lives is not only relevant to sharks, but to all species which pose a threat to human life at the same time as facing population declines and extinction (Neff, 2012). Additionally, understanding the relationship between humans and sharks is important for understanding human – wildlife conflicts more broadly because shark bite events are one of the most globally dispersed examples of human – wildlife conflict (Neff, 2015, p. 116). And, as reconciling species conservation and human safety continues to be a goal of public policy, this research aims to address this gap in the knowledge surrounding the social processes that contribute to shark hazard mitigation policies. Specifically, Skogen et al. (2019, p. 146) argue that there is a need for more studies that examine the conflicts between humans and large carnivorous species in the Global South, as this research aims to do.
Neff and Wynter (2018, p. 7) argue that there is a need for a more comprehensive review of public perceptions towards shark bites and shark hazard mitigation policies because governments are willing to disregard scientific advice in implementing policy responses to shark bite events. They suggest that, while there is adequate scientific evidence to prove that these are bad policies, it is crucial for researchers to demonstrate that these policies also lack public support. Therefore, this research offers a comprehensive case study analysis of the perceptions that contributed to the development and implementation of the WA SHMDLP, which Cullen-Knox et al. (2017, 73) describes as ‘quintessential case study material’.
2.10 RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTIONS By analysing the literature above, some clear problems have emerged that this researcher has attempted to address throughout this research. Firstly, as stated above, this policy was widely criticised for lacking a scientific basis and not being conservation minded. This suggests the presence of other external pressures that must have contributed to the policy implementation. Furthermore, the policy, which was largely criticised for not being conservation minded and having the potential to further damage the population health of an already endangered species (white sharks), failed to actually catch and therefore, kill any of the species that were the focus of
Chapter 2: Literature Review 46 these concerns. This means that the conservation minded criticisms of the policy were not validated. Because of this, the question must be asked: if external anthropogenic biases led to the implementation of the policy, and the scientific criticisms of the policy were not validated, why did policy remain so controversial following its failure to catch any white sharks?
This research aims to contribute to the literature on human-wildlife conflicts by focusing on this well-known series of events in which an endangered and internationally protected species was responsible for the deaths of several people in WA in a relatively short period of time. By examining the positions of key stakeholders towards the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, this research aims to contribute to the understandings of the tension that exists between shark related hazards and shark conservation. The research argues that the tension between managing shark hazards and shark conservation enables dominant stakeholder groups to ‘capture’ the policy agenda and therefore shape policy responses; the thesis will, through a detailed analysis of key stakeholder data, demonstrate how these tensions are indeed employed in one particular context . This research will use the Theory of Claims-making Activities to conduct a comprehensive analysis of two separate but competing social problems that both relate to the relationship between humans and sharks.
Firstly, it will contribute to understandings of the social processes that influence policy makers responsible for implementing shark hazard mitigation techniques and secondly, it will contribute to understandings of the social processes used to reject policies that seek to kill endangered, keystone species. This research will be informed by themes identified from the literature, such as the Jaws Effect, the ‘Save the Sharks' Movement, the Issue-Attention Cycle, new-speciesism and post-domesticity theory. By attempting to determine the applicability of these ideas to this issue, the researcher aims to use this research to contribute to the broader understandings of how anthropogenic biases influence government decision-making in cases of human-wildlife conflict. While there has been some consideration of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 in the literature, this research project aims to offer the most comprehensive analysis of the social processes at play that contributed to the development of this policy and its rejection by the public, scientific community and other key stakeholders.
This research aims to contribute to the relevant fields of knowledge by answering two central research questions:
Chapter 2: Literature Review 47 1. How were shark bite incidents in Western Australia constructed as a social problem that contributed to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2104 as a policy response? 2. How was the pre-emptive killing of large sharks in Western Australia in 2014, as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, constructed as a second social problem?
2.11 CONCLUSION Throughout this chapter, an extensive review of all relevant literature has been conducted to provide context for the specific social conditions that this research aims to examine. An analysis of the literature on shark bite incidents, human perceptions of these incidents, the role of the media in influencing policy makers and the policy context in which the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was developed can contribute to the understanding of how the increasing in shark bite frequency in WA between 2010 and 2014 was successfully constructed as a social problem. Alternatively, an analysis of the literature regarding the value of large predatory sharks and how humans have come to perceive wild animals can inform the understanding of how the pre- emptively killing of large predatory sharks in WA in 2014 was successfully created as a social problem. The following chapter will discuss the theoretical framework for this research, particularly the Theory of Claims-making Activities in more depth.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 48 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework
3.1 INTRODUCTION This research offers a constructionist approach to understanding two social problems that were identified between 2010 and 2014 in WA. Therefore, this chapter will begin with a discussion about constructionism and how social problems are constructed. This will be followed by a deeper discussion about the Theory of Claims-making Activities (TCMA), which has been used to frame this research project.
3.2 CONSTRUCTIONISM This research will use a constructionist approach to analyse the data. Therefore, it is appropriate that a constructionist theory be used to answer the research questions. Social problems are regarded by either one of two perspectives: constructionism or objectivism. Objectivists believe that social problems are defined by objective harms posed to society by real threats (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994, p. 151). Under the objectivist approach, conditions that do not pose actual threats to society, such as the belief in witchcraft that led to the persecution of witches in Renaissance Europe, cannot be defined as social problems (Goode & Ben-Yehuda, 1994, p. 150). This contradicts the constructivist argument that social problems are constructed and are irrelevant to the objective harms that are viewed as social problems. For example, Bassis, Gelles, and Levine (1982, p. 2) define a social problem as a “condition that has been found to be harmful to individual and/or societal wellbeing”. However, this objectivist approach to defining social problems is limited in that it does not allow for issues that are only perceived as harmful (witchcraft) to be defined as social problems and fails to account for conditions that are truly harmful that are not defined as social problems (tobacco smoking pre-2000s). However, through a constructionist perspective, something that is defined as a social harm does not necessarily need to pose any real or palpable threat to society to be defined as such (Schneider, 1985; Spector & Kitsuse, 1977).
The threat of white shark bite off the WA coastline did result in injury and death, suggesting that the harms could be viewed as an objective social problem. However, given that shark attack incidents occur globally without equal societal reaction and that many conditions that are
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 49 responsible for higher rates of death and injury to Australian beachgoers are not defined as social problems (rips, surfboard injury, jellyfish sting), this research will use a constructionist approach. This is because the WA bite incidents were defined differently from other comparably worse conditions, meaning that the definition of these events as a social problem was not objective. Furthermore, the implementation of drum lining off the WA coastline did result in injury and death to many marine animals, suggesting that these harms are also objective. However, the social reaction to these harms, given that the fishing industry is responsible for a staggeringly high rate of marine animal deaths, without causing equal public reaction, suggests that a constructionist approach may also be more appropriate for examining this social problem.
This research will use the TCMA to explain the construction of two distinct, yet conflicting social problems. The first social problem that that research aims to examine is the increased frequency in shark bite incidents off the WA coastline between 2010 and 2014. The second social problem that this research aims to examine is the use of drum lining as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This theory is fundamentally constructionist and aims to explain the way the social problems are constructed through claims-making processes. It is noted that moral panic theory is another constructionist theory that was initially considered appropriate for this research. While all moral panics are socially constructed problems, not all socially constructed problems are moral panics, and preliminary findings suggested that the construction of shark bite incidents in WA as a social problem was not a true moral panic. While it is possible that a perceived, rather than true, moral panic did occur, this theory was not found to be the most appropriate theory for framing this research. It was determined that moral panic theory was not appropriate because it appeared that, while the ‘disproportionality’, ‘concern’ and ‘hostility’ components could be adequately tested and likely proven true, this was not the case for ‘consensus’ or‘volatility’ because the necessary data to test these components could not be located.
Furthermore, as this research will aim to examine two competing claims through the TCMA by examining the counter claims against lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques, moral panic was not seen as the most appropriate theory for this project. This is because an additional examination of moral panic theory would not have been able to have been achieved within the limited scope of this project. Therefore, this research will only focus on the TCMA because it is able to be tested with the data available. The following section will begin by outlining the
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 50 construction of social problems, which will be followed by a deeper explanation of Spector and Kitsuse’s (1977) TCMA. This will include an explanation of why this theory is appropriate for this research.
The Construction of Social Problems
Before the idea of social constructionism was developed, the study of social problems lacked cohesion and suffered many critics. Social harms where predominantly regarded from a functionalist perspective and as Durkheimian social facts, meaning that the existence of social problems was separate and irrelevant to the ways in which society perceived them (Weinberg, 2009, p. 61). However, it was argued that social problems included such a large spectrum of conditions and that they could not be defined as any specific type of condition (Best, 2010, p. 1). For example, some social problems, such as vagrancy, infertility and suicide, impact society on an individual scale, while issues such as famine, terrorism and world population impact much larger entities (Best, 2010, p. 1). Furthermore, while some social conditions are defined as social problems, other harms are not considered social problems and conditions that had previously been considered social problems are no longer identified as such.
In determining which conditions are social problems, Farley (1987, p. 2) suggests that a condition can be considered a social problem when it meets three criteria. Firstly, it must be regarded by a significant portion of a society to cause difficulties or be undesirable in some way. Secondly, it must be caused by the inaction or action of specific people or wider society and finally, it must either affect or be perceived to affect many people within a society. These criteria are consistent with the constructionist approach to defining social problems in that conditions need only be perceived as harmful for them to be successfully constructed as social problems. Additionally, Rochefort and Cobb (1994, p. 20) and Best (1995, p. 13) argue that the social perception of a condition as a social problem is entirely subjective, regardless of the objective harms posed by the condition. Rochefort and Cobb (1994, p. 20) suggest that the frequency or perceived frequency of events plays a role in a how a condition changes from a single event to a broader social problem. They suggest that an increased frequency of events that are perceived to be harmful can act as a trigger for a condition to become a social problem.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 51 The idea that social problems are constructed was developed by Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse and first published in their 1973 article, Social Problems: A Reformulation and was further discussed in their 1977 book, Constructing Social Problems (Best, 2010, p. 1). In order to address the criticisms around the lack of a clear definition for ‘social problems’, Spector and Kitsuse (1977, p. 75) proposed that sociological thinking alter the way that social problems are perceived and argued for social problems to be defined as “the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some punitive conditions”. Under this definition, social problems were seen as a sequence of events, rather than as static conditions, that occur as a result of changing social definitions of a particular condition (Hannigan, 2014, p. 51). This definition provided a clear alternative to the way that social problems had previously been perceived and was the beginning of social constructionism.
The constructionist approach to researching social problems has provided researchers with a way to explore how particular phenomena are socially constructed as public social problems, rather than private, and to examine the social processes through which they are constructed (Weinberg, 2009, p. 61). The constructionist approach not only enables researchers to examine the social processes through which social problems are constructed, but also to examine the ways in which they are evaluated, implemented, combined with or replaced by other problems and finally, the social processes through which they are forgotten (Weinberg, 2009, p. 61). In the research of social problems through claims-making activities, it is important for researcher to guard against the tendency to ‘slip back’ into the analysis of a condition and its associated harms (real or otherwise) (Spector & Kitsuse, 2001, p. 76). Indeed, Weinberg (2009, p. 63) supports this by stressing the irrelevance of putative conditions in the field of social problems research. However, while an analysis of the conditions that have been constructed as harms is irrelevant to their construction as harms, it is still appropriate that this thesis consider the conditions in the literature review section of this document. This is because it contributes to the understanding of how stakeholders have come to perceive them.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 52 3.3 THE THEORY OF CLAIMS-MAKING ACTIVITIES Claims
Claims themselves are the first component of the TCMA and, simply put, are the complaints being put forward by a group or groups within society that label a condition as a social problem (Hannigan, 2014, p. 51). Best (1989) states that researchers of social problems must determine the following things during an analysis of the claim-making process: 1) what are claims makers saying about the condition that has been identified as a social problem? 2) what is the rhetoric of the claims-making? 3) how is the claim being typified? And finally; 4) how have the claims been presented by the claims-makers in a way that aims to persuade their audiences of the legitimacy of the problem?
The rhetoric of claims-making refers to the type of language that claims-makers use in order to convince their audiences that the condition they perceive as harmful poses a genuine threat to society (Best, 1989). The rhetoric of claims-making consists of three necessary components: grounds, warrants and conclusions. The ‘grounds’ of claims-making rhetoric is also known as the data and is used to provide the basis to the claim that is being put forward. Grounds typically refer to a definition of the problem, an example of how it is a problem, or a numerical estimate put forward to support the belief that a condition is a social problem (Hannigan, 2014). Each type of claims-making grounds supports the claim in a different way. For example, Hannigan (2014) states that definitions are used to provide the audience with a direction with which to begin perceiving the problem and to set boundaries for what constitutes the problem. With regards to this research, a definition would refer to the way that the increase in shark bite events off the WA coast was being oriented towards a specific condition and the boundaries placed on that condition that constitute a social problem. Examples are used to make the problem more relatable to the audience and numerical estimates help to spark support for the claim by providing the audience with an estimate of how severe the harm is (Hannigan, 2014). Examples for this research would be intended to make the audience of the claim about the social problem of shark bite incidents of the WA coastline inclined to identify with the issue and how it impacts society. Finally, numerical estimates for the intended research would refer to any statistics or numerical estimates put forward to the audience of the claim about the impact that shark bites off the WA coast have on society.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 53 The second component of the rhetoric of claims-making, warrants, refers to the strategies that claims makers use to justify their demand for change (or no change) regarding their specific claim (Hannigan, 2014, p. 52). For example, with regards to this research, this would be the justifications used by the claims-makers to demand and persuade the audience of a need for a response to the ongoing shark bite incidents off the WA coast. Hannigan (2014, p. 52) states that warrants usually consist of efforts, by the claims-makers, to persuade the audience that the victims of the claim are helpless, innocent or faultless or that the condition that is being put forward as problem causes basic impingements on the rights and freedoms of the victims of the claim. For this research, this may constitute efforts of the claims makers to portray the victims of shark bites as blameless or to convince the public that their rights to the ocean for leisure activities have been impacted by the claim. Finally, conclusions of the rhetoric of claims-making simply refer to the suggested solution to the problem that is being suggested by the claim-makers (Hannigan, 2014). In the case of the research, this would refer to the suggestions by the claims- makers about how to solve the social problem of increased shark bite incidents off the WA coast.
The rhetoric of claims-making also draws upon the morals of a society to rally support for a claim. Ibarra and Kitsuse (1993) argue that claims-making rhetoric also consists of image clusters that are used to persuade audiences that claims have moral connotations. They label these clusters of rhetoric as ‘rhetoric idioms’ and identify multiple types including the rhetoric of loss, unreason, calamity, entitlement and endangerment. The rhetoric of loss can be used to convince audiences that the condition being labelled as a social problem is responsible for the loss of culture, nature or innocence. The rhetoric of unreason is designed to invoke the audience into conjuring up images of conspiracy and manipulation, while the rhetoric of calamity is used to persuade audiences that the condition being put forward as a social problem is one of utter disaster (Ibarra & Kitsuse, 1993; Warren, 1993). The rhetoric of entitlements aims to appeal to the audiences’ sense of rights, justice and fair play, and is designed to persuade them that these social values are being negatively impacted upon by the condition that the claim seeks to address (Ibarra & Kitsuse, 1993). Finally, the rhetoric of endangerment is a strategy that aims to invoke image clusters that persuade the audience that the condition poses a real threat to the physical or mental wellbeing of individuals or the health of a society.
Claims must also be typified, which allows for the illustration of particular features of a social
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 54 problem. The way that claims are typified contributes to how much attention they receive from an audience. For example, a claim may be typified in several alternative ways before it gains traction as a social problem (Best, 1995, p. 19). Best (1995, p. 19) outlines two models of typifying a social problem: the medical model and the melodramatic model. The melodramatic model for typifying social problems is particularly relevant to this research. In this model, social problems are typified in terms of victims, who are helpless and heroes, who must rescue them. While this model is often applied to crime related social problems, it may apply to this research in the way that shark bite victims are portrayed as victims and governments are portrayed as heroes.
Finally, ‘rhetorical motifs’ refer to the deliberate reoccurrence and repetitive use of particular expressions of language designed to invoke feelings of moral significance to a particular aspect of the condition. Hannigan (2014) states that rhetorical motifs typically refer to specific agents, magnitudes or practices and offers the construction of ‘AIDS as a plague’, as an example of a rhetorical motif.
Claims-makers
Claims-makers are the group of people or segment of society who are putting forward the argument, or claim, that a specific condition constitutes a threat to society. Because claims- making can be difficult work, claims-makers tend to be people or parties with a significant interest in the issue and with something to gain from a solution (Best, 1995, p. 92). Often, particularly in the case of crime-related social problems, claims-makers are victims of a condition, seeking justice or compensation.
According to Best (1989), it is important for constructionist researchers to determine whether or not claims-makers are associated with specific organisations with vested interests in the outcome of a claim, whether they present the claim on behalf of a third party or themselves, and how experienced they are at making claims. Claims-makers can refer to the medical or scientific community, governments, public servants and policy makers or the media, who have a vested interest in constantly detecting and discussing emerging issues (Hannigan, 2014). Furthermore, claims are often presented by groups of claims-makers from different fields or with different
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 55 interests. This makes the examination of claims-making by constructionist researchers more complicated.
There are four types of claims-makers: the activist, the professional, the pressure group and the official (Best, 1995, p. 93). Activists are usually motivated by ideology and invest their efforts into social movements to enact change. They are often members of the public or people with a significant public profile, such as celebrities, who focus their efforts towards social campaigns, although they may lack expert knowledge in the discipline of their claim. For example, this research examines the role that environmental activists played in the construction of the claim against drum lining in WA. Professional claims-makers tend to consist of doctors, lawyers and scientists who can use their expertise in a discipline to compliment the skills used by activists in claims-making. With regards to this research, this includes scientists who act as professional claims-makers in the claim about drum lines and pre-emptively fishing for white, tiger and bull sharks being a social problem.
Next, pressure groups are claims-makers who tend to maintain a strong influence over government decision making processes. For example, pressure groups might consist of powerful industries such as coal and gas mining or agricultural giants. The claims made by pressure groups tend to sit outside the public eye because these claims are often made privately (Best, 1995, p. 93). In this research, the tourism industry will be considered as a potential pressure group. Finally, official claims-makers exist within government and can direct their claims to the public as part of political campaigns, or they can keep their claims within government in the form of bureaucratic conflicts.
Claims-making processes
Once the claim and claims-makers have been identified, the claims-making process must be examined by researchers who hope to examine the construction of social problems. According to Best (1989), researchers of claims-makers must determine who the target audience of the claims- makers were, whether the claim had to compete with any rival claims, what relevance the identity of the claims-makers had to the way the audience received the claim and how the audience shaped the claim. ‘Claims-making styles’ are a key concept of the claims-making
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 56 process and refer to the technique used by claims-makers to effectively present a claim to an intended audience. For example, a claim may be fashioned in a legalistic style to appeal to an audience of policy makers and government, or it may be fashioned in a scientific style to appeal to the scientific community (Hannigan, 2014). While claims-makers can use face-to-face techniques to present claims to their audiences, many claims-makers use the mass media to persuade an audience of the validity of a claim. Best (1995, p. 19) argues that by convincing the mass media that a claim is newsworthy, claims-makers can rely on the mass media to reach a wider target audience than could be achieved through face-to-face claims-making processes. When the media is involved in spreading a claim about a social condition, they are likely to use dramatic examples of the social problem in order to gain the attention of an audience.
Hannigan (2014) states that there are three sub-processes in claims-making, which are known as animating the problem, legitimating the problem and finally, demonstrating the problem. Weiner (1981) has suggested that these three sub-processes of claims-making exist in constant ricocheting interactions that make up the collective definition of social problems. Animating the problem refers to the claims-makers establishing constituencies and turf rights for who the claims-makers are and who the victims of the ‘social problem’ are, as well directing certain skills and advice towards these groups (Hannigan, 2014). Legitimating the problem refers to the claims-makers efforts to strengthen their claims by supporting it with expertise, refining how it is framed and ensuring it is identifiable as its own separate problem. Finally, demonstrating the problem means that claims-makers seek to convince opposing ideologists of the legitimacy of their claim through strengthening their claims with data and alliances with other claims-making groups (Hannigan, 2014).
3.4 CONCLUSION Throughout this chapter, the theoretical framework for this research project has been discussed. It was revealed that the researcher has used the constructionist TCMA to explain how bite shark incidents in WA were constructed as a social problem that caused the WASG to implement the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 as a policy response. Furthermore, this theory has also been used to explain how pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was constructed as a second social problem. The following chapter will discuss the methods used to conduct this research, considering data collection and analysis techniques.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 57 Chapter 4: Methods
4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research is to answer two research questions:
1. How were shark bite incidents in WA constructed as a social problem that contributed to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 as a policy response?
2. How was the pre-emptive killing of large sharks in WA in 2014, as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, constructed as a second social problem?
This chapter will outline the methods used to conduct this research and consider the relevant methodologies. As discussed in the previous chapter of this thesis, researchers using the TCMA must examine the roles of all relevant stakeholders to successfully identify and explain the processes through which a condition has been constructed as a social problem. Therefore, this research collected data revealing the positions of key stakeholders towards the conditions that were constructed as social problems, to determine the role that each of the stakeholders took in constructing them. This research was conducted as a documentary analysis and used documents from the government, including various state departments, the federal Department of Environment and local governments in WA, as well as the tourism industry, scientific community, public, environmental activists and the media, to represent these stakeholders.
As is the nature of documentary analyses, the data collected for this research was qualitative. Qualitative research is concerned with the complexities of human beings and their surroundings and aims to produce findings that allow us to understand the interactions between human beings and their environment (Sanchez-Algarra & Anguera, 2013, p. 1241). As this research project aimed to examine how two social problems were constructed by key stakeholders as social problems, using a constructionist lens, it was, therefore, appropriate that qualitative research methods be used to holistically describe the relevant events.
Richards and Bartels (2011, p. 1) state that while qualitative data is often criticized for being subjective, anecdotal or not constituting real science, it adds a ‘richness to the data that cannot be
Chapter 4: Methods 58 obtained by looking at numbers alone’. Furthermore, qualitative researchers can guard against criticisms that qualitative research findings are anecdotal and lack generalizability by achieving saturation, where new themes and ideas cease to emerge from the data despite the addition of more participants (Richards & Bartels, 2011, p. 1). With regards to the data used for this research, this means that the researcher was required to collect enough data to reach saturation in order to increase the generalizability of the findings.
Walker (2015, p. 38) argues that one way in which qualitative researchers in social constructionism can have reasonable confidence in the validity of their findings is by comparing their findings to what is already known. Therefore, the findings from this research project have been compared to the current literature on human understandings of shark related hazards and shark hazard mitigation techniques, which was discussed in Chapter 2.
This research was conducted in several phases. The first phase was a qualitative documentary analysis of documents collected from various government departments through snowball sampling. The second phase was an analysis of the public submissions made to the EPA, DF and the City of Cockburn and the final phase was an analysis of newspaper articles collected from Factiva. Throughout this chapter, each of these phases will be discussed in more detail, including the data collection and analysis methods used.
4.2 PHASE 1 – APPLICATIONS FOR DOCUMENTS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 (CTH) Following an analysis of the literature, including a review of the events that occurred in WA leading up to and following the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, it was clear that understanding the perceptions by the WASG of shark related hazards and shark hazard mitigation techniques was crucial to answering the research questions. Therefore, the researcher began the data collection phase of this research by approaching several of the government agencies that appeared to have been most involved in the shark hazard mitigation policies implemented during the time period that this research aimed to examine.
This was done with the aim of determining the perceptions of these issues expressed through correspondence both within and between different departments to determine the agencies which expressed the greatest levels of concern for increasing shark bite frequency in WA and played
Chapter 4: Methods 59 the greatest role in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, as well as being used as a process by which other key stakeholders could be identified. This method of data collection, where preliminary data is used to identify subsequent data, is known as systematic snowball sampling (Contandriopoulos, Lemire, Denis, & Tremblay, 2010).
The data collected during Phase 1 of this research consisted of a combination of publicly available documents, such as Hansard and published reports, and correspondence that was not available to the public. The aim was to collect as much documentation from as many relevant government agencies as possible to allow for the construction of a narrative, in which the roles of various government departments in constructing SP1 and SP2 could be determined. The data for this research that was not publicly available was collected through applications for information to government agencies under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth).
This Act states that ‘Individuals have the right to request access to documents from Australian Government ministers and most agencies under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).’ (OAIC, 2001). While the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) is predominantly relevant to individuals seeking personal information, it is also used to access documents pertaining to government decision making processes and policies, as this research aims to do. According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) (2001), documents under the FOI Act only refer to:
• “any paper or other material on which there is writing or a mark, figure or symbol • electronically-stored information • maps, plans, drawings and photographs • any article from which sounds, images or writing are capable of being produced”
The OAIC (2019) recommends that government ministers of departments are approached informally for requests for documents, before applicants submit official applications. This is recommended because it can often make the process faster and easier for both parties and does not have any impact on the applicant’s ability to make subsequent formal applications. In accordance with this recommendation, each department was contacted, via email or through website contact form submissions, with an informal request for the data that was required to
Chapter 4: Methods 60 complete the research. This first agencies contacted through this method were the CSIRO, City of Cockburn, City of Busselton, Department of Energy and Environment and Department of Premier and Cabinet.
As mentioned, snowball sampling was used to collect more data for this aspect of the research. Therefore, following correspondence with these initial agencies, the researcher identified further relevant parties and subsequently began correspondence with these agencies. This method was repeated until the researcher was confident that all appropriate government agencies had been represented in the data and saturation of themes was achieved. Snowball sampling was appropriate for this phase of the research because applications for information under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) can be costly, due to application and photocopying fees, which required the researcher to negotiate with agencies about the documents required and only proceed with formal applications where necessary.
The following table (Table 1) includes a brief summary of the timeline in which documents were collected for Phase 1 of the research. The ‘Date of First Application’ refers to informal applications for information, as discussed above. The ‘Date of Final Correspondence’ refers to the final point of contact with each agency, and ‘Outcome’ refers to the number of documents collected from each agency, which includes publicly available documents or links to other sources that were used for the research. It is noted that not all of the documents retrieved through this process were relevant to the research, meaning that the number used to contribute to the narrative was significantly less.
Appendix One provides in-depth descriptions into why each agency was approached and what was requested in each application. It is noted that, where ‘No documents’ were collected, this was mostly due to the researcher’s decision not to proceed with an application due to the determination that the agency did not play a crucial role in the construction of SP1 or SP2.
Chapter 4: Methods 61
Table 1 – Summary of Applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) Agency Date of first Data of Final Outcome application correspondence
CSIRO 12 August 2016 7 October 2016 13 documents
Department of 12 August 2016 15 August 2016 26 Documents
Environment
City of Busselton 12 August 2016 12 June 2017 185 pages of documents
City of Cockburn 12 August 2016 12 June 2017 44 documents
Department of 12 August 2016 29 August 2017 37 Documents Premier and Cabinet
Environmental 26 April 2017 19 June 2017 15 documents Protection Authority
Tourism WA 26 April 2017 6 June 2017 No documents
Department of 8 June 2017 15 September 2017 104 docs Fisheries
City of Albany 29 December 2017 24 January 2018 No documents
City of Rockingham 29 December 2017 12 January 2018 1 document
City of Manjimup 29 December 2017 29 December 2017 No documents
Shire of Augusta- 29 December 2017 7 March 2018 15 documents Margaret River
Shire of Dandagaran 29 December 2017 10 January 2018 No documents
Shire of Exmouth 1 January 2018 15 January 2018 4 documents
City of Busselton (2) 29 December 2017 9 January 2018 1 document
Chapter 4: Methods 62
Town of Cottesloe 29 December 2017 28 February 2018 45 documents
Rottnest Island 29 December 2017 17 January 2018 10 documents Authority
Shire of Capel 29 December 2017 15 January 2018 No documents
City of Stirling 1 January 2018 24 January 2018 3 documents
City of Greater 1 January 2018 2 January 2018 4 documents Geraldton
City of Joondalup 1 January 2018 22 February 2018 16 documents
Shire of Carnarvon 1 January 2018 2 January 2018 No documents
Department of 12 January 2018 18 January 2018 48 documents Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions
The type of data analysis that was used for this phase of the research was a narrative analysis. Branigan (1992, p. 3) states that those who use narratives to tell a story are engaging in ‘a perceptual activity that organises data into a special pattern that represents and explains experience’. Narrative analyses are used to paint a ‘big picture’ about events as participants understand them (Adams, Khan, Raeside, & White, 2007, p. 339). With regards to this research, this relates to how the government and non-government agencies identified in these documents perceived shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. Adams et al. (2007, p. 339) states that this type of analysis is useful for determining how stories or events are constructed, as this research aims to do, therefore making this an appropriate coding technique for this phase of the research. However, there is a methodological problem with correct interpretation in narrative analyses. As it is unlikely that a narrator will have access to the same amount of information as the participants of a story or series of events, there is the potential for incorrect interpretation of the meanings within the available information (Cortazzi and Archer 2002, 26). However, it is
Chapter 4: Methods 63 noted that this was one of three datasets, which were triangulated in Chapter 6 to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation of social meanings in the final conclusions of the research. A thematic approach to coding this dataset was also considered, which would have allowed for the information to be divided into themes such as ‘no consideration of culling’ and ‘consideration of culling’. However, narrative analyses are useful for providing social meaning and cultural context (Cortazzi and Archer 2002, 101), as this research aimed to do, and therefore this dataset was analysed using a chronological narrative approach.
The data collected through Phase 1 was limited in several ways. Firstly, while more than 500 documents were collected, it is recognized that this is unlikely to be all the existing documentation from these agencies that are relevant to the research. Alternatively, it is possible that key agencies were not identified through the snowball sampling technique, meaning that that the data is not representative of the entire population. As is the nature of applications made under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), it is possible that documents were withheld for various reasons. This may be the result of several practical refusal reasons, such as the request being considered likely to ‘substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations’ or failure to identify certain documents (FOI Act 1982 (Cth) s 24AA). Indeed, the application made to the WA EPA encountered these problems (see Appendix 1). Furthermore, it is recognized that a significant portion of the documents collected were edited, usually as a result of third-party details having been redacted. This meant that, in many cases, the researcher was unable to determine the relevant parties in documents of correspondence.
Despite these limitations, it is expected that this is not likely to have impacted the overall findings of the research. This is because saturation was achieved through reoccurring themes appearing in the perceptions expressed by key stakeholders. Furthermore, this only amounts to one of the key datasets used for this research and the findings from this dataset were triangulated with the findings from the remaining datasets and discussed in Chapter 6. While the researcher may have overcome some of the limitations of this dataset by devoting more time and financial resources towards the application process, this was not possible given the time and financial restraints of this project. Overall, the data collected through Phase 1 allowed for the identification of many key stakeholders and the construction of a narrative of stakeholder perceptions regarding shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques in WA.
Chapter 4: Methods 64
The documents collected through this phase of the research were individually coded for relevant information. Where possible, the parties responsible for sending and receiving documents of correspondence were noted to determine which stakeholder groups acted as claims-makers in the construction of SP1 and SP2 and which groups were the target audiences of these claims. Furthermore, documents were examined for warrants and conclusions, meaning that arguments about why a condition constituted a social problem were noted and what recommendations were made about how to overcome the threats posed by these conditions. This method of analysis allowed for the creation of a narrative in which key stakeholders were identified and their roles in the construction of SP1 or SP2 was determined by examining the arguments relied on in their claims-making efforts.
4.3 PHASE 2 – PUBLIC OPINION Phase 2 of this research relates to the collection and analysis of data representative of public perceptions of shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. In researching the construction of social problems, it is important to examine public opinion, as the public act as key stakeholders concerning social events and issues. The public can act as claims-makers or as an audience that claims-makers wish to persuade about the nature of an issue. With regards to this research, analyzing ‘public opinion’ not only refers to the Western Australian community but also considers the international public perceptions of the issues that this research aims to examine as social problems. This is due to two factors. Firstly, while the WA Government is responsible for representing the interests of WA residents, as is discussed in more detail in Part 1 of Chapter 5, it was revealed that they strongly considered the international community’s interest in shark bites incidents and shark hazard mitigation techniques concerning the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Secondly, as most of the public opinion data collected for this research was collected via online submission forms, it is impossible to know where the people making these comments sent them from, unless explicitly stated. Although, it was clear from the content of many submissions that they were sent from outside Australia.
Data representing public opinion was collected through three avenues during this research. The most significant of these datasets was the 10,475 submissions made to the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (WA EPA) that were specifically in response to the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 proposal. However, the City of Cockburn conducted a very brief local
Chapter 4: Methods 65 community survey regarding shark related hazards and shark hazard mitigation techniques not specific to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Furthermore, 104 public submissions were collected from the WA Department of Fisheries (DF) regarding perceptions shark populations, the impacts of shark bite incidents on local tourism and shark hazard mitigation techniques (see Appendix 1). These second two datasets lack generalizability due to the small sample sizes and are, therefore, only used to support the findings from a deeper analysis of the submissions to the WA EPA.
The theoretical framework of this project required the researcher to examine the relationships between claims, claims-makers and claims making processes to determine how SP1 and SP2 were constructed. While these datasets were valuable for contributing to the understanding of how the public may have acted as claims-makers in the construction of SP1 or SP2 and how they constructed the claims, it was limited in its applicability to the overall aims of the project. This was because they were not able to be used to examine the roles of other potential claims-makers, or even other claims-making processes used by the public (for example, the public rallies that occurred in WA in opposition to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014). Therefore, it was not necessary for the datasets used for Phase 2 of this project to be analyzed or coded according to the complete theoretical framework of this research.
Each of these datasets comprised of open-ended surveys, making them qualitative data sources, and the responses to these surveys were inductively coded according to themes identified during the coding process. This allowed for themes and patterns in the data to be quantified to allow for a quantitative analysis of the qualitative findings, which is useful for increasing the generalizability of the findings. The following section will outline the collection and analysis techniques used for each public opinion dataset in more detail.
Submissions to the Environmental Protection Authority
The 10,475 submissions made to the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (WA EPA) through their website during the 10-day public submission period were coded using NVivo 12 Plus. NVivo was used because it is an appropriate qualitative coding software tool than enabled the researcher to manually code all 10,475 submissions into relevant categories while also allowing for automatic coding of terms or phrases as needed. NVivo offers functions
Chapter 4: Methods 66 for data interrogation such as ‘word frequency’ that enables researchers to determine the frequency of words or phrases and visualization functions like ‘word clouds’ and ‘word trees’ that help researchers visually display their findings. Furthermore, the ‘drag and drop’ function was particularly helpful for this time constrained project as it enabled the researcher to code quickly.
It is important to note that while there were 10,475 submissions made to the EPA, only 10,301 were coded in this research project. Three submissions had no text and 171 submissions were excluded due to a software error that made them unable to be coded by the NVivo software. However, this was deemed statistically insignificant and the researcher proceeded with 10,301 submissions.
One consideration worth noting for this dataset is that due to the nature of the WA EPA (as an agency concerned with environmental protection), it was expected that the data would be largely focused on environmental issues. This meant that there was a likelihood that this dataset would not be representative of true public opinion because those making submissions to the government for non-environmentally focused reasons may have used other forums. However, as this has been the only significant public opinion dataset able to be collected during this research and it does include a wide range of non-environmentally focused arguments, it is still a valuable source of data for measuring public opinion on the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017, which is likely to be similar to that for the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. It is also noted that the level of support for the WA SHMDLP 2014 - 2017 may have been higher than is represented in this dataset, again, as a result of the nature of the WA EPA.
Another potential limitation with this dataset is that, while all the submissions were made to the WA EPA, it is evident that the submissions were not all made from the Western Australian public, but rather, from all over Australia and the world. In some comments this is obvious because countries of origin are explicitly stated and in other instances it is assumed due to implications made in the text or submissions made in languages other than English. This means that this dataset is not a true representation of the opinions of the WA public, however, this does not necessarily impact the findings as this is still a dataset that informed the WA Government and the construction of this social problem (pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA) is not
Chapter 4: Methods 67 necessarily limited by state borders. In addition, noting the amount of non-English submissions can help to demonstrate the level of international attention that this policy received.
The WA EPA website provided the public with a two-part submission forum, in which people were required to answer a close-ended question followed by an open-ended question explaining their response to the first question. The close-ended question offered the option ‘Do not assess’, meaning that a person making a submission did not believe the WA EPA should conduct an assessment on the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 for environmental reasons. The second option, ‘Assess – API category A (no public review)’, was used when it was believed that the EPA should conduct an Assessment on Proponent Information but that the environmental acceptability or unacceptability of the proposal was apparent at the referral stage. ‘Assess – API category B (environmentally unacceptable)’ was used when it was believed that ‘there was potential for serious, wide-spread or irreversible environmental consequences from its implementation (even if the likelihood of this happening is low) and the consequences could not be mitigated’ (WA EPA 2012). The final choice was ‘Assess - Public Environmental Review (PER)’ which was designed as an appropriate level of assessment for matters deemed of regional and/or Statewide significance, of significant concern to the public, with several key environmental factors, or because detailed assessment is required to determine how the environmental issues could be managed.
The open-ended question following these options asked the public ‘What are the reasons for your preferred option for decision of the EPA?’. Although the close-ended questions could have been used as a point of data, the researcher noticed an obvious discrepancy between the answers which often appeared to be the result of a lack of understanding about the different types of assessments. For example, there were submissions which clearly outlined high levels of concern regarding environmental impacts from drum lining where the ‘do not assess’ option had been selected for the close-ended question. Furthermore, it was determined that the responses to the open-ended question were a richer data source that provided a better understanding of public opinion than the close-ended responses. For this reason, this project only focused on the responses to the open-ended question. However, a graph (Figure 1) has been provided to demonstrate the distribution of responses to the close-ended question. As can be seen, the there was an overwhelming preference for ‘Assess – API Category B (environmentally unacceptable)’
Chapter 4: Methods 68 which is consistent with the findings from this data.
Figure 1 – Submission Type Responses
All submissions from the open-ended question were divided into the parent nodes of ‘Opposition’, ‘Support’ or ‘Position Unknown’ depending on whether the arguments made within each submission were in favor of the WA SHMDLP 2014 - 2017 or otherwise. Rather than coding per whole submission, submissions were coded by ‘arguments’ within submissions to allow for a wider representation of the topics being discussed. This means that while there were 10,301 submissions, 26,107 arguments were coded out of these, meaning that each submission contained an average of 2.5 arguments. This method allowed for a deeper statistical analysis of the data than coding whole submissions would have because many of the submissions contain multiple arguments that relate to different topics (for example, a person may oppose the policy due to environmental and economic concerns, therefore, representing two points of data in one submission).
The vast majority of arguments in this dataset were coded to the ‘Opposition’ node because they were evidently opposed to the implementation of drum lining in Western Australia (25,531 from 26,107). Submissions, or arguments within submissions that were in favor of the policy were coded to ‘Support’ (78) and submissions with unclear sentiment were coded to ‘Unknown’ (this was largely made up of single letter/word submissions and totaled 89).
Chapter 4: Methods 69
Content within the ‘Opposition’ and ‘Support’ nodes were inductively coded into reoccurring themes. This means that themes were identified during the coding process, rather than coding according to preconceived themes, such as those drawn from the theoretical framework. This is because, as mentioned above, this dataset was only useful for understanding how one group of potential claims-makers (the public) perceived shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. Within the ‘Opposition’ parent node, fourteen child nodes were used to divide the key arguments. These were ‘Alternative Recommended’, ‘Bycatch’, ‘Cost of Operation’, ‘Disagreement with Policy Justification, ‘Ecosystem’, ‘Errors within the program’, ‘Ineffective’, ‘Animal Welfare’, ‘Legal’, ‘Other’, ‘Public Opposition’, ‘Rights’, ‘Target animals’ and ‘Impact on Tourism Industry’. (It can be noted that only one submission was coded to both Support and Opposition parent nodes).
The researcher had intended to group these nodes according to overarching themes, for example, with ‘Ecosystem’, ‘Bycatch’ and ‘Target Animals’ being grouped under a parent node for ‘Environmental Concerns’. However, this was not pursued because it became obvious that this presented difficulties in the coding process. For example, submissions that referred to breaches of the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) would be coded as ‘Legal’ arguments, while it was likely they were also motivated by concerns for the environment. Alternatively, those noting that the program was flawed because drum lining in the summer months meant that it was not an appropriate shark hazard mitigation technique for catching the most dangerous species of shark (white sharks) would be coded as ‘Errors within the program’ while this was also likely to relate to the ‘Ineffective’ argument, although had not been explicitly stated. Therefore, the researcher decided not to pursue the overarching parent node themes as this did not allow for appropriate overlap of themes and required a greater level of guesswork with placing comments in nodes.
Once the data had been manually openly coded into the fourteen nodes representing key themes, each theme was examined in more detail. Due to the time constraints of the project reoccurring phrases or words within larger arguments were identified using the text search function rather than manual coding. Unfortunately, this method fails to account for spelling errors, which were relatively common in the data. However, this coding method was still sufficient for discussing the main themes from within this dataset, especially given that this dataset was only one of several that this research aimed to examine.
Chapter 4: Methods 70
City of Cockburn Community Survey
The second dataset for public opinion that was located during this research was the results of a community survey conducted by the City of Cockburn (see Appendix 1). The City collected 46 responses from local residents between 6 January 2014 and 15 January 2014 concerning the Shark Barrier Trial off Coogee Beach. This dataset was limited for several reasons, including the small number of respondents and the fact that the survey is specific to a shark hazard mitigation trial that was unrelated to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Furthermore, Coogee Beach had not been the location for any recent shark bite incidents. However, these responses were used to support the findings discussed above and provide insight into the perceptions of local WA residents, where the submissions to the EPA could not.
Because this survey concerned a different shark hazard mitigation technique to the one discussed above, it was not appropriate for this dataset to be coded using the same techniques. Furthermore, due to the very small sample size, it was not considered necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of the survey answers because they lacked generalizability. Therefore, these responses were coded into very broad terms that considered public support for lethal compared to non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques.
Department of Fisheries Online Submissions Form
The researcher collected 104 public submissions made to the WA Department of Fisheries (DF) via the ‘Feedback and Complaints’ link on the Department’s website (see Appendix 1). The researcher requested submissions made between 24 September 2013 and 24 December 2014, after it was suggested by the DF that a three-month period be selected. This window was selected because it was representative of public opinion during the immediate lead up to, and shortly after the announcement of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 and included the announcement of shark barrier trials at Old Dunsborough, a non-fatal bite incident, a fatal bite incident and two single catch-and-kill orders. Therefore, this window should have been representative of public opinion concerning shark related hazards and both non-lethal and lethal hazard mitigation techniques. However, none of the submissions provided by the DF were dated from before 8 October 2013 (in response to the catch-and-kill order for a non-fatal bite incident), suggesting that there was
Chapter 4: Methods 71 not a significant amount of public concern regarding shark populations, hazard mitigation techniques or impacts on tourism prior to the announcement of this catch-and-kill order.
While this was not a significant amount of data for measuring public perceptions compared with the number of submissions made to the EPA, this dataset was more useful for measuring public concern in the construction of shark bite incidents as a social problem (SP1), as submissions are not specific to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Furthermore, it was expected that the DF would be a more likely point of contact for people in favor of lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques than the EPA, given that it is not a department solely concerned with environmental protection. This may mean that this dataset was more representative of true public opinion for both SP1 and SP2, although it is noted that the timeframe for submissions does not extend into the period of drum line deployment. As this was a small number of submissions that was easily divided up into responses to the events listed above, these were manually coded using Microsoft Excel according to issue that they refer to, dates and sentiment.
4.4 PHASE 3 – MEDIA This research aimed to examine the construction of two social problems in Western Australia between 2010 and 2014 through the constructionist lens of TCMA, which required the researcher to examine the claims made by all key stakeholders. As discussed in the previous chapter of this research, the media plays a significant role in both how the claim is presented and in distributing a claim to a wider audience. Therefore, it was necessary for this research to examine the role that the media played in constructing the social problems that this research aimed to explain through this theory.
The media component of the data was divided into the two social problems that this research focused on. Firstly, the researcher examined the role that the media played in the construction of increasing shark bite frequency off WA as a social problem between 2010 and 2013 (SP1). Secondly, the researcher examined the role the media played in constructing the WA SHMDLP, specifically drum lining, as a social problem from 2013 to 2014 (SP2).
The amount of media coverage on these two topics combined was too large for the researcher to feasibly examine all coverage across all media platforms. According to the WA DPC (2014), the
Chapter 4: Methods 72 media demonstrated significant interest in the topic of drum lining in WA in 2014, with 765 separate articles on sharks in local, state and national newspapers, 1,100 radio news bulletins on sharks (Western Australia), 850 radio talk back comments on sharks (Western Australia), 290 television news items on sharks (Western Australia). Furthermore, preliminary searches in Factiva revealed that there was also a vast number of articles relating to increased shark bite incidents in WA in the lead up to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Therefore, in line with the restrictions placed on this research project and to simplify the coding process, this research only examined newspaper articles as a data source to represent the wider role of the media. This is because the formatting of newspaper articles allowed for them to be more easily coded, the analysis was more manageable by limiting the sample to one type of media outlet and because it was anticipated that the range of articles collected from all available newspapers was be representative of the wider positioning of the media on these topics.
The newspaper articles collected for this research have been collected through the global news database: Factiva. Factiva was chosen because it provides online access to newspaper articles from the timeframe of the research and because its search functions allowed the researcher to conduct a comprehensive search for all newspaper articles relevant to this research.
The search for newspaper articles collected in this research has fallen into one timeframe, despite the aim of the research to explain two distinct social problems. This is because it was expected that the construction of these problems would somewhat overlap in time, due to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 being in response to the increased frequency of shark bite incidents. Between 2000 and 2008, only four fatalities occurred off the WA coastline, which was followed by seven fatalities attributed to shark bite incidents from 2010 to 2013. Therefore, the beginning date for the search was 17 August 2010. This date has been chosen because it represents the beginning of the ‘spike’ in white shark attack fatalities off the WA coastline.
The end date for the collection of the ‘media’ component of the data was 30 April 2014. This is because this was the end date of the trial WA SHMDLP 2013-2014, which allowed for an appropriate sample of data regarding the construction of drum lining as a social problem to be collected. While preliminary searches in Factiva suggested that there was some media coverage of drum lining after this date, this was minimal, which is consistent with the Issue-Attention
Chapter 4: Methods 73
Cycle that was discussed in Chapter 2. Furthermore, this research is only concerned with how the second social problem (drum lining) was constructed as a social problem and its relationship with the first social problem (increasing shark bite frequency). Therefore, media coverage beyond the initial construction of this topic as a social problem is not relevant to the research.
To ensure the content of the articles was relevant to WA, the ‘Region’ function of Factiva was limited to ‘Western Australia’. However, sources were not restricted to a specific region because this enabled the research to consider where most of the media attention was coming from. Preliminary searches suggested that the large majority of articles were from within WA, with the remaining being predominantly Australia-based and only several from international news outlets.
The search terms used to collect the data were divided into two categories, to align with the two distinct social problems being explained by the research. To collect articles relevant to SP1, the following was entered into the search bar: ‘shark bite’ or ‘shark attack’. As discussed in Chapter 2, while the term ‘attack’ is fear invoking and misleading to the public, Neff and Hueter (2013, p. 65) state that this is the media’s preferred terminology for describing shark bite incidents. To collect articles relevant to SP2, the following terms were used: ‘catch and kill’ and ‘shark’ or ‘shark cull’ or ‘drum lining’ or ‘drum line’. These terms were expected to yield articles both in favor and against the drum lining program to allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the media’s role in the social construction of this topic. While it is acknowledged that there may have been other terms that would relate to the topics being researched, it is expected that these search terms alone would be sufficient to allow for the collection of a wide range of articles representative of the wider media’s role in the social construction of these topics.
These data collection methods yielded several hundred articles for each social problem, which was a large enough sample to allow for saturation of themes and generalizability of the findings. Similarly to the previous phase of the research, these articles were also coded using NVivo 12 Plus. While the public opinion datasets were inductively coded based on reoccurring themes, this source of data was coded thematically based on categories drawn from the theoretical framework. This was because, while the media act as a single group of claims-makers, they represent many other claims-making groups through the inclusion of comments and quotes from other potential claims-makers. This meant that this dataset was more valuable for achieving the
Chapter 4: Methods 74 broader aims of the research than the public opinion dataset discussed above.
Therefore, themes used to code newspaper articles were broadly divided into the themes of the theoretical framework: ‘Claim’, with subcategories including ‘Grounds’, ‘Warrants’, ‘Conclusions’, ‘Rhetoric’ and ‘Motifs’, and ‘Claims-makers’, where other parties were referred to or quoted in the articles. Within the subcategory ‘Warrants’, themes for coding were drawn from the themes identified through the open coding technique used in Phase 2 of the research. For example, ‘Ecosystem’, ‘Bycatch’, ‘Ineffective’ for arguments in opposition to the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 and ‘Safety’ and ‘Impact on Tourism’ for arguments in favor of pre- emptively killing large sharks. This coding technique was valuable for allowing this qualitative dataset to be analysed quantitatively, by assigning numerical values to the qualitative findings. Again, this is useful for increasing the generalizability of the findings.
4.5 CONCLUSION This chapter has outlined the methods used to conduct this research in the three separate phases in which they occurred. Using the documents collected through Phase 1 of the research, a narrative analysis was conducted to reveal the perceptions of key stakeholders regarding shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. Using several of these documents, a content analysis of the public opinion was then conducted, using inductive coding techniques that enabled the researcher to identify reoccurring themes within the data. These themes were also used to inform the coding process for Phase 3 of the research, in which a thematic analysis of newspaper articles was conducted to determine the role the media and other groups played in constructing shark bites in WA and pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA as two social problems. The following chapter will outline the results from each of these phases before a discussion and conclusions about the findings of this research can occur.
Chapter 4: Methods 75
Chapter 5: Results
5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter will discuss the results collected through the methods outlined in the previous chapter. Part 1 consists of the narrative analysis compiled from the documents collected through applications for information under the FOI Act 1999 (Cth), as outlined in Phase 1 of the previous chapter. This also includes published reports, Hansard and government media releases. In this narrative, all the documents that were identified as likely to have played a role in the construction of either social problem that this research aims to examine have been summarized. Following this, Parts 2 and 3 of this chapter outline the results from Phases 2 and 3 of the research that was discussed in Chapter 4.
5.2 PART 1 – NARRATIVE ANALYSIS
Introduction
This is a summary narrative of the events and correspondence that took place regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. The documents that informed this narrative were retrieved through a series of applications to various WA local governments (LGs), WA State Government (SG) Departments and the Department of Environment (DE) for information under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) (See Appendix 1). This narrative aims to provide an understanding of the different perceptions held by various key stakeholders regarding shark related risks and shark hazard mitigation that contributed to the development and implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
The City of Cockburn, City of Bunbury, City of Rockingham, City of Greater Geraldton, Town of Cottesloe, Shire of Augusta Margaret River and City of Busselton are included in this narrative as representatives of LGs perceptions and approaches to dealing with shark related risks and shark hazard mitigation. This narrative also includes documents from the WA Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), which was the department that lead the program and the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA), who were tasked with assessing the policy. It includes documents from the Australian DE, who granted the DPC with an
Chapter 5: Results 76 exemption to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), which enabled the program to operate and from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), who represent the scientific community and were tasked with reviewing the DPC’s Public Environmental Review about the potential impacts that drum lining would have on the environment. It also includes information from the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), who were responsible for acting in response to many of the shark bite incidents that occurred in WA and documents from Tourism WA who were repeatedly identified as key stakeholders throughout the development of the program. It is noted that other parties, such as Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) and Sea Shepherd are mentioned in this narrative, but information concerning these groups was collected through the parties listed above, rather than directly from these groups.
Throughout this qualitative narrative, some information, particularly third-party information, has been redacted. However, these documents have still provided some useful information because they were clearly used to inform the decisions and perceptions of the departments that provided them through the researcher’s applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth). Furthermore, while the public is considered a key stakeholder, any documents measuring public perception that were retrieved through the process described above will be discussed in more detail in Part 2 of this chapter. However, they have occasionally been briefly outlined in this document because, as will be outlined in each case below, they have been used to inform other discussions in this narrative. Finally, it is noted that most documents informing this narrative are not publicly available, however, some publicly available information, particularly published reports and Hansard, have been included in this dataset. Overall, this narrative aims to present a timeline of the attitudes of key stakeholders regarding shark related risks and shark hazard mitigation techniques and how these attitudes contributed to the construction of the social problems that this research aims to explain.
18 August 2010
In August 2010, Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) released a media alert following a fatal shark bite incident on 17 August 2010 in the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River. The document tilted 'Surf safety is more than a shark attack kit' notes that this was the second shark
Chapter 5: Results 77 bite fatality to have occurred in WA in three years, compared to 27 drownings at unpatrolled beaches in the same period. SLSWA argues that there was a low incidence of shark bite events compared to injuries and deaths caused by rips and large waves crashing over rocks and that the state government should focus its attention on reducing coastal drownings. This document is important as it highlights SLSWA's position on shark bite incidents at the beginning of the timeframe that this research seeks to examine.
19 August 2010
Following a fatal shark bite incident in August 2010, the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River received an email from an unknown third-party requesting information on what steps the Shire would take to address the loss of life from the bite incident. The third party referred to the incident as a 'horrific attack' that cause the community to 'bear a great burden of grief, a sense of pain and another tragic loss of human life'. Although this third party uses highly emotive language, it was not suggested the shark be hunted or removed from the area as a result. Rather, it was suggested that seal colonies be relocated, shark attacks kits be provided to SLSWA and cleaning fishing equipment be prohibited in the area where the incident occurred. This document provides an example of the language used to describe shark bite incidents in WA in the construction of them as a social issue. It is also interesting that, while highly emotive, it does not yet appear that there was demand for sharks to be removed to enhance bather safety.
01 November 2010
Following a non-fatal bite incident on 30 October 2010, a journalist from the Sound Telegraph emailed the City of Rockingham for a comment on why beaches were not closed following the incident. The City provided a media response statement, in which they argued that council rangers do not have the authority to close beaches without direction from the WA Water Police or SLSWA. This document is relevant to the research because it highlights the early media focus on the issue. It is also worth noting that this journalist did not question why the shark was not being hunted, which may suggest that they did not consider it an appropriate action to remove the shark.
Chapter 5: Results 78 24 October 2011
Following a fatal shark bite incident off Rottnest Island in October 2011, the media contacted the Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) for a comment on whether the incident was expected to have an impact on the Island's tourism. The RIA stated that 'there is no evidence to suggest that tourism will be affected on the island'. This is relevant to the research because it demonstrates consideration of the impact that shark bite incidents may have had on tourism in the lead up to the WA SHMLP 2013-2014.
2 April 2012
On 2 April 2012, the City of Bunbury emailed the Presidents, Mayors and CEOs of Augusta- Margaret River, Busselton, Capel, Bunbury, Harvey, Waroona, Mandurah, Rockingham and Cottesloe to discuss the need for a meeting following a fatal bite to a diver between Busselton and Bunbury on 31 March 2012. It was suggested that the meeting be held to discuss the possibility that one shark has been responsible for multiple attacks and whether there were any seasonal/climatic reason to explain increase in shark bite frequency. This is relevant to the research because it highlights which LGs were perceived as having the highest interest the shark bite incidents in WA. It is also noted that the victim of this incident was Peter Kurmann, the husband of a Busselton Council member.
18 April 2012
In an email from the DF to the City of Cockburn, the DF states that ‘while it would be natural to seek statistics to evaluate risk or problem, such as the number of car accidents at a particular intersection, that type of philosophy cannot be drawn to evaluating risk of shark interactions at a particular location. The random nature of shark bites and the fact sharks can travel vast distances in a short period of time makes it impossible to draw any conclusions regardless of whether or not shark sighting data existed’. This correspondence highlights the DF’s position that the risk posed by sharks to humans in a particular location is impossible to calculate and is relevant to the research because it is contradictory to later statements made by the DPC about the risk of attack.
Chapter 5: Results 79 10 May 2012
The Coogee Beach Shark Exclusion Zone Feasibility Study was published by the City of Cockburn in May 2012. This study found that there had been twenty-three shark attack fatalities off the entire WA Coast since 1866, with seven of these off the Perth Metropolitan area between 1923 to 2011. It was found that increasing rates of shark incidents meant that there were four fatalities off Perth Metro beaches between 2000 and 2011, averaging one per 2.7 years but that no recorded incidents of serious injury or fatality had ever occurred in the Cockburn area. Records for this information were derived from the Shark Attack File. Overall, it was found that while population growth had led to increased beach use, the risk of shark attack was still considered low and that rapid response medical attention had contributed to further reducing the risk of fatality. The risk of serious injury or death at Coogee Beach was found to be ‘very very low’.
This study considered other potential measures of shark hazard mitigation, including gill nets, drum lines, exclusion nets or electronic devices. It was stated that gill nets are designed to ensnare sharks, causing them to drown, in turn, reducing risk to bathers through a reduction in shark numbers. The report stated that this technique received large opposition from environmentally minded people due to the impact they have on both target and non-target marine life. Drum lines were found to have similar environmental impacts as gill nets, specifically the mortality of turtles and non-target sharks. Exclusion nets were found to have been successful in many areas where they are used and have a lessened negative impact on the environment, compared with the previous two measures. Electronic shields were not found to be an appropriate measure for protecting large swimming locations. However, there was no statement on the methodology used to reach these findings and no references were included. Overall, the report considered potentially viable options and listed drum lining as a ‘treatment not considered suitable’, stating ‘these were not contemplated, not least because their use would be expected to lead to the death of protected marine species, and required licenses would not be expected to be issued’. This suggests that the City of Cockburn deemed methods of shark hazard mitigation designed to kill sharks as an inappropriate method of control.
In considering environmental impacts and anticipated popularity for exclusion nets, it was found
Chapter 5: Results 80 that the mortality of marine creatures caught in exclusions nets was likely to engender concern and criticism from the general public. It was suggested that public concern would be greatest for species such as the fairy penguin, sea lion, dolphins and turtles but that even the death of a shark (especially a protected shark) would not be received well. However, the City of Cockburn ultimately anticipated that the implementation of shark exclusion nets would be received well by the public, particularly by individuals concerned about shark attacks. An informal canvassing of local neighbours on behalf of the Coogee Beach Progress Association revealed that the initial responses to proposed exclusion net implementation were concerns about environmental impacts (specifically on dolphins) and costs. However, a preliminary survey conducted by the City of Cockburn found that most people would be more likely to visit a beach with a shark net than without, suggesting that there was local concern about shark hazards. This is interesting for the research because it demonstrates LG awareness and consideration of public concern regarding environmental impacts of shark hazard mitigation techniques, while also acknowledging some level of public concerns for safety.
Appendix 2 of the Shark Exclusion Zone Feasibility Study stated that there was ‘considerable paranoia surrounding sharks’ and compared the rate of 23 unprovoked shark fatalities nationwide in the past 20 years (1991 - 2011), to 220 drowning fatalities in 1994 and 1995 alone. It claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that shark attacks were on the rise, with an average of 1.1 fatalities per year, compared to 3.2 deaths per year from snakebites. It was concluded that ‘a beach user at Coogee is much more likely to be bitten by a snake and die while walking to or from the beach, than being attacked by a shark’. Furthermore, Appendix 2 stated that, while drum lines are utilized in the QSCP, there was ‘a school of thought’ that drum lines actually attract sharks to the area. This document is relevant to the research because it highlights this LG’s position on shark attack perceptions, by making comparisons to other risks to the public. It is worth noting that this LG considered the potential for drum lines to attract sharks towards beaches as early as 2012, before the DPC began to develop the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, as this turned out to be a leading criticism of the policy.
Finally, the report stated that public opinion regarding shark attacks can be ‘fickle, and is likely to be influenced by recent events’ but overall, the ocean is shark territory and there are risks associated with swimming in the ocean. It was stated that swimmers are ‘entering their domain’
Chapter 5: Results 81 and that the ‘ocean is not a swimming pool. We can’t keep blaming sharks’. This further highlights the City’s stance on perceptions of shark bite incidents and is interesting because it suggests that the City of Cockburn believed that public safety was predominantly the responsibility of beach-users rather than government. These arguments also appear in public opinion data in Part 2 of this chapter. However, this study fails to outline the methodology used to reach many of the findings and does not support any of the findings with references to scholarly material, or otherwise.
14 June 2012
In the notes from a 14 June 2012 meeting within the City of Cockburn, it was stated that all of the fatal shark attacks along WA’s West Coast, including the Perth Metropolitan area had been attributed to white sharks. It was stated that the City investigated the feasibility of shark exclusion net installation at Cockburn in November 2011 and presented a report that considered environmental impacts and community consultation. The report, which was completed in May 2012 was deferred for discussion in June 2012.
In the report, it was stated that suggestions for shark hazard mitigation techniques at Coogee were based on considerations of national and international strategies, including ‘potential adverse impacts on non-targeted marine species and how this would be perceived by relevant Agencies and the Community as a whole’. The report also presented the findings of a small community survey from people visiting Coogee Beach and their perceptions regarding the need and worth of some form of shark exclusion net and whether this would influence their use of the ocean.
Conclusions of the report were that, while the conditions were ideal and installation was feasible, the rate of serious injury or death from a shark at the location was historically low and that the risks of shark bite were further reduced by the use of metropolitan beach aerial patrols, Surf Life Saving at Coogee and public information about hazards of swimming at certain hours of the day. An alternative to the use of shark exclusion nets that was considered was more regular Surf Life Saving patrolled hours. The ‘highlighted issue’ associated with shark exclusion nets was determined to be the risk of entanglement and subsequent mortality of marine creatures, including protected species, further demonstrating this LG’s consideration of environmental
Chapter 5: Results 82 impacts when implementing shark hazard mitigation techniques.
The use of non-exclusion shark nets (gill nets), as used in QLD and NSW, were ‘certainly not recommended’ for these reasons. The report also considered the potential for nets to deter ocean users due to the presence of nets creating the perception that shark associated risks were actually higher than they were. Finally, the report acknowledged that while further testing was required, preliminary beach surveys suggested that approximately two thirds of people supported the introduction of a shark exclusion net but that the overall recommendation of the City was not to proceed at that time. This is relevant to the research because it demonstrates the City of Cockburn’s, as a LG, perception that shark hazard mitigation techniques, which have the potential to harm marine fauna, are not suitable for use when the rate of shark bite incidence is so low.
10 August 2012
In August 2012, the Mayor of the Town of Cottesloe sent a letter to the Minister for Fisheries regarding shark bite frequency in WA. The letter opened with the statement that: 'The matter of sharks at our beaches and the number of fatalities this summer season have been of significant media interest and continues to draw concerns from the public about the safety of our beaches.' This is important for the research because it is further evidence of the role of the media in shaping the construction of this social problem. It also points to public concern being a key factor in managing the issue despite a lack of evidence of community concern being provided.
Furthermore, in this letter, a series of existing and proposed shark hazard mitigation initiatives are discussed. These predominantly relate to increased surveillance through aerial patrols and tagging and improving the warning systems that warn bathers when a shark has been sighted. In addition, collaboration with educational institutions is proposed as a way to further research. This is important because it demonstrates this LG’s lack of consideration of shark hazard mitigation techniques that kill sharks and seems to promote bather responsibility for safety and use of science to inform shark hazard mitigation policy.
Chapter 5: Results 83 10 September 2012
In response to the letter outlined above, the Minister for Fisheries thanked the Town of Cottesloe Mayor for his suggestions and outlined the current strategies in place and informed him that the Shark Response Unit was preparing a 'large scale community engagement strategy and media campaign in order to provide the community with information on sharks and advice on avoiding shark hazards'. It is expected that this referred to the SharkSmart website that was later released.
16 October 2012
In October 2012, the Engineering Services Managers for the Town of Cottesloe informed the Town Councilors that the WASG was considering introducing a fixed shark exclusion barrier to Cottesloe. It was stated that the two main concerns with this idea were liability regarding who is responsible if a swimmer or surfer gets stuck in the barrier and who is responsible for the 'potential mixture of sea creatures being caught in the barrier, other than sharks'. This again, highlights environmental concerns about shark hazard mitigation strategies at a LG level.
30 November 2012
A document that outlined the ‘Shark Research Breakfast Meeting’ that occurred on 28 November 2012 at the Sorrento Surf Club, listed attendees as City of Joondalup staff, including the Mayor, five members of the University of Western Australia’s Oceans Institute and Fisheries Minister, Tony Cappelluti. Under the heading ‘Key Points to Note’ in this document, it is clearly stated that while the state government was interested in addressing shark bites in WA; ‘There was no call for culling’. This is significant for the research because it demonstrates the DF, a LG and members from the scientific community did not consider culling sharks at this point in time (where two fatalities had occurred in WA in the previous eight months).
December 2012
In a Consultation Paper by the Department of Commerce (DC) published in December 2012 titled ‘A Trial of Beach Enclosures as a Measure to Mitigate Shark Attack in Western Australia’, it is stated that Expressions of Interest (EOI’s) regarding trial beach enclosures would be
Chapter 5: Results 84 presented to the Shark Hazard Advisory Research Committee (SHARC) for consideration. It was stated that ‘the aim of the Government’s shark mitigation strategies is to provide a comprehensive set of solutions that will reduce the risk of injury or death from shark attack. However, as with many other natural hazards, these risks will always be present either on land or in the ocean’. What the program sought to achieve was the continued enjoyment of ‘our wonderful marine estate for Western Australians in all regions’. This focus on maintaining beach culture relates to the use of the ‘rhetoric of loss’ aspect of this project’s theoretical framework and will be discussed in the following chapters.
The paper stated that beach enclosures are specifically designed to prevent injury to marine life and that the only potential impacts on marine life from beach enclosures are crabs and stingrays that have become entangled. This Consultation Paper cited a report prepared by the City of Cockburn when discussing stakeholder perceptions, which concluded that: ‘Overall, the current levels of protection, particularly for people swimming close to shore at patrolled beaches in the warmer months in favourable light and sea conditions, appear to be serving the Perth Metropolitan beach goers well’. This suggests that in late 2012, it was the state government’s understanding that LGs found the current levels of shark hazard mitigation appropriate. This is helpful to the research as it may offer a potential date from which to begin examining when the state government decided to change its’ approach to proactively catching sharks, counter to local government attitudes.
19 December 2012
On 19 December 2012, the City of Greater Geraldton released a Community Service Announcement informing the public that council rangers had closed a beach after a shark sighting. It was stated that ‘Swimmers and beach users should be aware and exercise caution when entering any beach on the City’s coast during this time’. This is relevant to the research because it demonstrates this LG’s approach towards shark hazard mitigation, which places the responsibility of ‘exercising caution’ onto beach users. This is particularly relevant considering a shark bite fatality had occurred in 2005 within the City’s jurisdiction.
Chapter 5: Results 85 16 January 2013
In the EOI Form submitted to the DC by the City of Cockburn on 16 January 2013, the City stated that it had been proactively investigating ways to provide a safe water environment for users, including considering reports on ocean pools and shark exclusion nets. The City assumed that the installation of ‘safe swimming location’ at Coogee Beach would be received well by people too nervous to go in the water on account of being concerned about sharks (although no supporting evidence was provided). This demonstrates a shift in attitudes and subsequent approaches to shark hazard mitigation on behalf of the City of Cockburn, which previously recommended against a shark exclusion net. There were no fatal shark bite incidents between December 2012 and January 2013 which makes it interesting that this shift occurred.
19 July 2013
In a proposal letter made to the Office of Science in the DPC from the City of Cockburn’s Director for Engineering and Works regarding beach enclosures, it was stated that Coogee had been identified as ‘an ideal site to trial a beach enclosure, due to its protected location, gently sloping beach and generally calm conditions’. The Director also stated that the City of Cockburn believed that the trial of an Eco Shark Barrier was a ‘positive step toward developing a new and accepted type of beach enclosure that may help to reduce adverse impacts on local marine life while adding to community safety’. This suggests that current shark hazard mitigation shark nets (for example, those used in QLD and NSW) were not perceived as ‘accepted’ by the City’s council and that they perceived the use of environmentally friendly techniques as a priority. This is consistent with the previous opinions expressed with the City of Cockburn, which deemed shark hazard mitigation techniques that aimed to kill sharks as unacceptable.
20 August 2013
In a Legislative Assembly Meeting in the Western Australian Parliament in August 2013, Premier Colin Barnett was asked to provide detail on spending relating to shark hazard mitigation. He stated that in response to a ‘great deal of community apprehension’ resulting from the five recent fatalities, the WA Government had increased funding to shark hazard mitigation measures including increased helicopter patrols, funding to universities for research into shark
Chapter 5: Results 86 repellents and dive suits, equipment increases provided to surf clubs, investigation into fixed shark enclosures and a direct communications app alerting beach goers to shark sightings. It is noted that there was no mention of any plan to commence drum lining and it was stated that aerial patrols were ‘the most effective’ shark hazard mitigation technique. In relation to why there was an increase in shark bite fatalities in recent years, Barnett speculated that it may have been ‘water temperature issues or other factors’. The statements retrieved from this Hansard are interesting because they show further evidence of the government’s focus on public concerns regarding shark bite incidents and the lack of consideration of lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques at this time. Furthermore, they fail to explicitly identify increasing shark populations as a cause for increased bite incidents, despite this being heavily relied upon as an argument in support of drum lining, as will be discussed later in this thesis.
30 August 2013
In a Media Statement from August 2013, Premier Barnett announced a new Beachsafe app that was developed with $50,000 from the State’s shark hazard mitigation strategy that aimed to increase community awareness of sharks and other beach hazards. Despite drawing funding from the shark mitigation strategy budget, Barnett discussed the ‘tragically high number’ of coastal drownings in the 13 months prior to this release. This is relevant to the research because, while there was only one shark related fatality during this timeframe, compared to 26 coastal drownings, it speaks to the government’s heightened focus on shark bite incidents compared to other, statistically higher threats facing beach goers.
13 September 2013
In September 2013, Tourism WA released their Annual Report for 2012-2013. It was found that the percentage of visitors whose expectations were met or exceeded upon visiting WA was 97.7%, which was a 7.7% increase from the target goal of 90%. It was also found that the number of inbound visitors to WA from interstate or international locations exceeded the target goal of 1,830,000, with 1,872,000 reported. It is noted that there was only one fatal shark bite incident during the timeframe for this Report and while this suggests that tourism was not negatively impacted by shark bite incidents during the 2012-2013 period, these performance
Chapter 5: Results 87 indicators are state-wide and not specific to coastal tourism. Furthermore, it is noted that the target goal of 13.7% of WA’s share of the international visitors to Australia was not achieved with an actual rate of 13.4%. However, these findings suggest that overall tourism in WA did not suffer during the 2012-2013 period. This is relevant to the research because the impact of increased shark related fatalities in WA was regularly cited as a leading cause for implementing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, as will be discussed further in throughout this thesis.
22 October 2013
In another Legislative Assembly Meeting in the WA Parliament on 22 October 2013, the Premier was asked to elaborate on the fixed beach enclosure at Old Dunsborough Beach. Barnett detailed how this net differed from shark nets that were designed to ensnare sharks and drown them as a lethal shark hazard mitigation technique, while a fixed enclosure separated swimmers from sharks while reducing the impact on the environment. This discussion was interesting because it further highlights the government’s lack of inclination towards lethal mitigation techniques (such as drum lining) as late as October 2013.
29 October 2013
Following a non-fatal bite incident from a blacktip reef shark at Turquoise Bay on 28 October 2013, an email chain from the Shire of Exmouth, the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW) and the DBCA discussed response protocols. It was noted that, as per the SLSWA protocols, the beach had been closed for 24 hours. The Shire staff were informed that all media enquiries should be directed to the DPW and that it was expected that 'an incident like this' would attract attention 'regardless of the type or size and species of shark'. This document provides more evidence of the media’s focus on shark bite incidents and LG’s consideration of this.
30 October 2013
In an email correspondence from 30 October 2013, the City of Busselton stated that they were looking to install a more rigid shark exclusion zone, more like a ‘fence’ than a net, for the purposes of entangling less marine life. This suggests that avoiding unintended marine animal mortalities was also a priority of this LG. This is consistent with the stance taken by the City of
Chapter 5: Results 88 Cockburn and helps support the idea that LGs in WA were predominantly concerned with unintended marine animal mortalities in developing shark hazard mitigation programs.
7 November 2013
A discussion paper, dated 7 November 2013, discussed shark sighting risk management in the City of Bunbury. The City of Bunbury identified the issue of public perception surrounding shark related hazards, stating that the ‘unprecedented increase of fatal attacks’ in the South West of WA had become a topical issue. It is argued that ‘it would be fair to state that this has also increased the perception of vulnerability amongst persons using the marine environment for leisure and consequentially, has the potential to impact upon the status of the Region as a preferred tourist/holiday destination. This could very well therefore, present an economic disadvantage to the local communities’. The City argued that the need to mitigate these risks were recognised by the ‘whole’ community and were topical through media interest. However, no evidence was provided to support these statements and there was no methodology mentioned regarding public surveys or similar approaches to measuring public perception.
The installation of a shark detection buoy off the beach in Bunbury was discussed in detail as a hazard mitigation measure. It was argued that the announcement of this installation may result in additional concerns of community vulnerability or, may alternatively, ‘unrealistically down-play existing risks, resulting in an increase in complacency’ and altering precautionary human behaviours into the future. In order to mitigate against this, the City concluded that the buoy be promoted as a ‘research program initiative’ to avoid the perception that it aims to provide warnings about local shark presence. Other risks identified with the installation of the buoy included ‘the reputation of the City as a preferred tourist or marine activities location’, about which the City expressed concern regarding heightened perception of risk resulting from shark hazard mitigation strategy implementation. This is relevant to the research because it was the second time that a LG had considered the possibility that increased shark hazard mitigation strategy implementation may lead to an increased public perception of risk.
Other concerns outlined in this paper include the City’s responsibility and potential liability in the event of an incident and costs associated with wages and signage required to implement the
Chapter 5: Results 89 strategy. There was also discussion surrounding the consistency of the application of shark hazard mitigation techniques across LGs within the region. The City of Bunbury appeared to hold the position that WASG operated policies are more consistent and applicable, suggesting they may have found the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 as preferable.
This is very interesting to the research because it clearly demonstrates this LG’s perception of a consensus of public concern surrounding shark related hazards and clearly considers the economic impacts of the increased rate of bite incidents. This is also interesting because there does not appear to have been a shark bite incident within this region in at least five years prior to the implementation of drum lining, meaning that the City’s focus on this issue may be predominantly spurred by public and media attention, resulting in economic loss, rather than the actual threat posed by sharks in the area.
27 November 2013
In an extract from WA Hansard from 27 November 2013, Liberal Party member Phil Edman discussed shark related hazard, specifically from white sharks. In his speech he stated that it was his belief that humans cannot control what happens in the water and that humans take a risk in entering a shark’s territory. He also claimed that he sent out a media release regarding personal shark deterrents, such as Shark Shield, and criticised the state media’s lack of interest in this topic by stating that ‘not one of them printed it’ (his comments in the media release) and that ‘they just wanted to continue talking about culling’. This is highly relevant to the research because it demonstrates a Liberal Party member speaking against culling, that was then implemented by a Liberal Government and it is further evidence of the role of the media in the construction of the pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA as a social problem. Comments made by Phil Edman were also discussed in the media, which is discussed in Part 3 of this chapter.
28 November 2013
In a Legislative Council Meeting on 28 November 2013, National Party Member Dave Grills compared the rate of shark bite fatalities to fatalities relating from family violence. He stated that the “latest shark attack sent the media into a frenzy, and there (was) talk about culling sharks”,
Chapter 5: Results 90 while there had been four fatalities in 10 years from shark bite incidents and 21 deaths in the previous year from family violence. Australia Labor Party (ALP) Member Amber-Jade Sanderson supported these statements arguing that while “the media goes into a frothing frenzy about a shark attack, a woman is beaten to death in front of her children and it does not even make a fifth of that kind of coverage”. While this discussion is about family violence, rather than sharks, it relates to the government’s awareness of the media focus on shark related hazards despite sharks not posing a significant risk to the public in comparison to other causes.
2 December 2013
In a document from December 2013, some hand-written notes were made about shark hazard mitigation in WA. The information about what these notes were used for has been redacted but it was provided to the researcher by the DPC (see Appendix 1). Within these notes it was simply stated ‘yes’ when considering whether white shark populations have increased. There was also discussion about the tendency of white sharks to come into shore for food following the end of the whale migration period. Furthermore, it was argued that white sharks hang around a beach for several hours following a bite incident which provides the opportunity for them to be captured and destroyed. In consideration of culling, it is suggested that ‘opening up a shark fishery is a trade-off’ for tagging all white sharks that are captured and released alive and providing the dead specimens to science.
Other hazard mitigation measures were discussed, including spotters, which were found ‘ineffective’ and when considering research, it was argued that it ‘must continue as has already started (and) cannot stop, although doesn’t believe it is effective’. Furthermore, there was a comment that the public needs to be educated that risk cannot be completely removed unless people ‘don’t go in the ocean’. In line with the comments on risk, there was a comparison to other higher risks including drowning, car accidents and drugs. While the exact purpose of this document is unknown due to the redacted information, it is important for the research because it was collected from the DPC and therefore, suggests that these statements were used to inform the DPC’s understanding of these topics in relation to developing the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014. Particularly, it is noted that the DPC believed that white shark populations had increased when no evidence to support this has been located during this research.
Chapter 5: Results 91 3 December 2013
An email was sent to the DF on 3 December 2013. Although the sender and recipient information had been redacted during the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) application process and much of the contents is unclear in meaning, there was some information that appeared to be relevant to the research. There is a comment about the increase in tagged sharks resulting in more ‘responses’, which is accompanied by a hand-written note that states ‘tagging program vs public perception – lots of pings instils greater fear in public’. This is relevant to the research because it further demonstrates the concern of the WASG surrounding public perception.
3 December 2013
In a second email sent to the DF on 3 December 2013 (from which the sender and recipient details had been redacted), the population and behaviours of white sharks were discussed. It was suggested that whale and seal populations had increased and that the white shark population had been recovering for two generations. Finally, a comment about the impracticality of nets on high energy coastlines may relate to why shark nets were not implemented in the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014. This is relevant to the research because it is further evidence of the government operating on the assumption that white shark populations have increased (despite no evidence of this being identified through the research).
6 December 2013
A page of handwritten notes dated 6 December 2013 was provided to the researcher by the DPC, which had been collected through a previous application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) (See Appendix 1). There is no indication of the author of the notes or the purpose of them. Some key phrases from the notes include ‘tagging program is ineffective’, ‘Govt. has duty of care to public’, ‘Cost to tourism: dive operators, surf school’. There is also consideration of ‘public perception of danger of coastline’ with a comment that people have changed their ocean-going behaviour and shifted their expectations. While these notes provide limited information, they are consistent with the trend that suggests a high level of concern about public perception and potential impacts on tourism on behalf of the DPC.
Chapter 5: Results 92 6 December 2013
The Margaret River Board Riders Club Inc. (MRBRC) sent a letter to Fisheries Minister Troy Buswell on 6 December 2013. The letter outlined a series of issues about white shark management and the increasing frequency of fatal attacks off the WA coastline discussed between local surfing groups, including the Yallingup Surfers Club Association Inc. The letter states that a meeting that occurred on 2 December 2013 drew on a range of information from professional fishermen, professional surfers, and local business owners to develop a ‘collective summary’ of the perceptions held by these ‘important stakeholders’.
It is stated that these stakeholders believe the Southern Australian population of white sharks may have increased ’10 fold’ to as many as 100,000 since 1999 and that ‘unfortunately, it appears that a lot of scientific data (had) not been shared with the wider public’. It was argued that this population increase had resulted in a significant increase in shark sightings and an unprecedented rate of attacks, sharks frequently coming closer to surfing and swimming areas, a substantial increase in the statistical likelihood of being attacked by a white shark, public anxiety, decreased business from tourism, a worldwide reputation as ‘The Death Coast’ and a highly successful conservation program that has now created a reverse imbalance.
The MRBRC argued that white sharks had taken up temporary residence off beaches for days prior to many of the attacks off the WA coastline, meaning that there was an opportunity to ‘cull’ individuals prior to a ‘predictable’ attack. This is relevant to the research because it is a clear call from the public for a ‘cull’. It is also contradictory to the information provided by the scientific community, DF and DPC regarding the unpredictability of shark bite incidents. The MRBRC argued that ‘failure to act in these circumstances is a serious dereliction of public duty to protect human life from imminent danger’. The MRBRC called for an immediate shift in the definition of ‘imminent threat’ to include any large white shark around a popular surfing beach. This is consistent with the WASG’s alternation of the definition of ‘imminent threat’ to large sharks simply being in popular surfing areas, rather than behaving in a dangerous way or being responsible for a bite incident.
Furthermore, it is suggested that state or private culling of these animals should occur, should be
Chapter 5: Results 93 focused close to shore and should be a deliberate attempt to bring numbers into balance. The MRBRC also called for increased research offshore and the investigation into potentially effective methods such as orca sonar and the emulsification and distribution of shark organs, such as liver. It was expected that these approaches should lead to an increase in the confidence of ocean users and an increase in tourism and investment in the area. The MRBRC stated that they understood that marine biologists would not support a cull because they were not living in the ‘real world’ and were driven by a ‘love of marine creatures’ but that they hoped it would not take the death of a woman or child for ‘real action’ to be taken. Finally, they argued that it was time for the state to start ‘valuing human life’ and act on their duty of care to protect human life, which they were currently failing to do, at a terrible loss. Overall, this document is very relevant to the research because it clearly outlines the position of a local group who supported the deliberate cull of white sharks and it dated shortly before the implementation of drum lines in this area. However, it is noted that these stakeholders did not make any mention of bull or tiger sharks, which were the remaining two species targeted by the program.
10 December 2013
On 10 December 2013, the DF released a media statement announcing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The government announced that it was aware of the ‘risks sharks pose to our beach users and the Western Australian way of life’. It was also stated that the new measures (drum lines) were designed to reduce the risks to beach goers while having a minimum impact on the surrounding environment. This followed the fatal bite incident that occurred in WA in November 2013. The implication that sharks pose a threat to the WA ‘way of life’ is useful for the application of the TCMA and will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Furthermore, stating in the proposal that the drum lines were designed to have minimal environmental impacts suggests that this Department was conscious of potential impacts on marine wildlife or public concern regarding environmental impacts.
10 December 2013
On 10 December 2013, Greens WA Member of the Legislative Council, Lynn MacLaren asked Fisheries Minister Ken Baston if he agreed with the findings made in the 2012 DF report that stated drum lines should not be introduced in WA due to the environmental impacts of the shark
Chapter 5: Results 94 hazard mitigation strategy. Baston stated that he did not agree and that the announcement of drum lining would ‘provide some additional reassurance to those members of (the) community who enjoy the aquatic environment’. It is noted that he does not claim that drum lines will increase bather safety and that he does not make any comment about environmental impacts. This supports other pieces of evidence found during this research that suggests the government may have been primarily motivated with public perceptions of safety rather than actual human safety.
11 December 2013
The following day, Lynn MacLaren presented a petition with 381 signatures to the Legislative Council. The petitioners requested that the Legislative Council recommend that the government’s plan to pre-emptively kill white sharks be withdrawn and that inquires be made into science-based approaches to shark hazard mitigation. It is interesting to note that only concern for white sharks, rather than bull, tiger or bycatch, has been expressed here.
12 December 2013
On 12 December 2013, Lynn MacLaren asked the Fisheries Minister a series of questions relating to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 in a Legislative Council Meeting. The questions asked were:
1. Will the minister please list all the sources of scientific research that the DF is aware of to show that the deployment of drum lines off WA will reduce attacks on humans by white sharks? 2. Is the minister aware that the target species of sharks for drum lines in QLD is bull sharks? 3. Is the minister aware that ‘most shark scientists’ are doubtful that drum lining will be effective at reducing fatal attacks on humans by white sharks? While the Minister for Fisheries requested the questions be answered during a recess, it is noted that a lack of scientific evidence for drum lining effectiveness was a reoccurring criticism of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and the Minister for Fisheries was aware of this prior to implementation.
Chapter 5: Results 95 12 December 2013
On 12 December 2013, the NSW Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) contacted the Minister for Environment on behalf of their client, Humane Society International Inc. The EDO provided the Minister with a letter from their client expressing great concern regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed policy on endangered species. They argued that the precautionary principle is relevant in deciding whether a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. This demonstrates that the DE was aware in the early planning stages of the program that there would be concerns about the environmental impacts of the program from stakeholders. It also demonstrates that the Australian Government was requested to consider the precautionary principle and, as they later approved the EPBC Act (1999) exemption that allowed the drum lining, chose not to follow it.
17 December 2013
On 17 December 2013, a staff member from the City of Busselton contacted an unknown party about the expected date of drum line implementation, suggesting that it would be likely to occur at the beginning of January 2014, to coincide with the influx of tourists in the area. This is important because it suggests that the influx of beach-going tourists in WA was a key consideration in the implementation of drum lining.
23 December 2013
On 23 December 2013, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) approached the Minster for Environment regarding the Australian Government’s legal obligations as a signatory nation to the CMS. The letter outlined the relevant laws and offered the DE future assistance regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This is relevant to the research because it suggests that the Australian Government was aware there was an international legal interest in the drum lining program but decided to grant an exemption regardless.
Chapter 5: Results 96 24 December 2013
The acting Minister for the Environment replied via letter to the WA Minister for Fisheries, regarding the WA Government’s intentions to implement drum lines in WA, on 24 December 2014. In the letter, the acting Minister for Environment stated that the Australian Government was supportive of ‘any actions that are required to remove individual sharks that pose a direct threat to human life and safety’. The letter also outlined Australia’s obligations under the CMS and EPBC Act (1999). This is the first document collected through the researcher’s application under the FOI Act (1982) that reveals that the Australian Government did not intend to adopt a precautionary principle approach to the drum lining program.
27 December 2013
On 27 December 2013, a person from the DPW sent an email to the DPC outlining an issue with the drum lining program. In the email chain, the DPW staff member stated that while they 'were not the program's biggest fan', 'if it must go ahead then then we'd better get it right. Particularly given the scrutiny of the program to those outside the process'. This admission of a lack of support for the program is helpful to the research in determining the position of the DPW towards the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
The issue noted in this email exchange was that Section 2.1 of the drum lining tender document stated that 'Drum lines will not be within any marine conservation areas'. However, it was the position of the DPW that all 36 of the South West drum lines would be placed in the Ngari Capes Marine Park. Therefore, the DPW requested this sentence be removed from the document to avoid embarrassment if the error was brought up by the media. Again, this is evidence of the WASG’s consideration of the media attention given to this topic.
2 January 2014
On 2 January 2014, the DPC and DE exchanged emails about the legal process required for the DE to grant an EPBC Act (1999) exemption to the WA Government. The email had an attachment with information of species population and potential impacts of several cetaceans, sea birds, dugongs and marine turtles. The DE informed the DPC that the request for exemption
Chapter 5: Results 97 from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) would require an argument about why an exemption was in the national interest, for example ‘how (the WA Government) knows that the measure will prevent shark attacks, Australia’s reputation with international tourists, GDP impact or other reasons’. This is further evidence that the impact on tourism was a key consideration in the implementation of the drum lining program and the Australian Government’s decision to grant the exemption. It is also interesting because whatever evidence was provided was sufficient to convince the DE that the measure would prevent shark attacks, although no evidence has yet been found during this research and lack of scientific evidence to support this was a key criticism of the program.
2 January 2014
In an email exchange between the DE and an unknown party on 2 January 2014, the DE requested information on what evidence had informed the WASG’s decisions about where to place drum lines and how many would be deployed. The reply states that the WA proposal is ‘a precautionary approach’ for several reasons. Firstly, it only focuses on the highest risks posed to ‘human health’ by focusing on sharks of only three species, only greater than 3 metres in length, only in limited defined areas and only during the months of highest beach usage. Secondly, it considers bioregional plans and marine assessments in developing techniques to reduce potential impacts to limit bycatch. Finally, it is argued to be a ‘precautionary approach’ in that it monitors the impacts on target and non-target species to contribute the scientific understanding of these species.
This repeated use of the word ‘precautionary’ in this interaction is interesting given that the DE arguably failed to apply the precautionary principle. Secondly, this examination of high-risk periods and species seems contradictory to the DF’s statement in a previous correspondence that it is impossible to calculate risk because of the random nature of attacks. This is also interesting because it claims that the program is precautionary because it targets the three most dangerous species of shark and during the highest period of beach use but only white sharks have been confirmed responsible for fatalities in WA and most fatalities have occurred during off-peak seasons. Therefore, despite the WASG previously having argued that risk of attack is impossible to calculate, policy makers for the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 have calculated the risk of attack
Chapter 5: Results 98 to be highest during periods where the only confirmed species responsible for human fatality is least likely to be in the vicinity of the designated MMAs. This might suggest that the primary concern in granting an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) was the perception of beach safety during the peak tourist season, rather than the actual risk posed to bathers.
3 January 2014
The application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) (see Appendix 1) to the DE yielded a document, containing an email exchange that occurred on 3 January 2014, between parties that have been fully redacted and are therefore, unidentifiable. It stated that the ‘emergency’ drum lines (meaning rapid response) will be deployed after a ‘large shark sighting’ in either MMA. This is relevant to the discussion around what constitutes ‘imminent risk’ as the program was subsequently criticised for ‘imminent risk’ referring to shark sightings only, rather than behaviour or other more relevant factors.
UNKNOWN DATE
Among the documents received from the application to the DE (see Appendix 1) was a publicly available report from Tourism WA dated 11 December 2012 and a brief summary of ‘water- based tourism figures’ in a second document. This indicates that the potential impact of shark bite incidents in WA on the tourism industry was a key consideration in determining whether a ‘national interest exemption’ should be granted from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). While the date of this document was not provided, it must have been prior to the DE’s decision that an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) was in the national interest. This document is relevant because it is evidence that the potential impact on tourism was a primary consideration in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, or at the very least, the DE’s decision to grant the exemption to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) that enabled the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 to operate.
6 January 2014
The DPC sent a letter to Parliament House on 6 January 2014, formally requesting exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) for the purposes of allowing the WA Government to pre-
Chapter 5: Results 99 emptively catch and kill sharks in WA. In this letter the DPC stated that the MMA areas and beaches that will be drum lined have been chosen on the advice of SLSWA based on popularity and how regularly they are patrolled. It was stated that the drum lines were based off the Queensland model with the significant difference being an increase in hook size from 14/0 to 25/0 with the goal to ‘deter smaller animals’ and therefore, reduce bycatch. This is important because increased hook size compared to QLD is regularly cited as a means to reduce bycatch and criticised for lacking scientific support.
The DPW is listed in this letter, alongside the DF, as a stakeholder which would be consulted on a technical basis. They are listed again as the agency responsible for conducting whale disentanglements if this should occur throughout the trial. This is noteworthy for the research because the DPW is occasionally listed as a key stakeholder, but their level of involvement seems minimal or unclear. The DPC acknowledged that the new shark hazard mitigation technique was ‘a contentious issue in the community’ but ‘of paramount importance to the government is the public safety of the community’. It is stated that this, combined with ‘significant potential impact on the economy through the loss of tourism opportunities and commercial ventures associated with water-based activities, supports a national interest exemption under the EPBC Act’. This is further evidence that the impact on tourism was a key consideration in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 and further evidence that the WASG was aware of public criticisms of the program from an early stage.
7 January 2014
In an email exchange (in which parties could not be identified due to redaction) that was collected via the application to the DE (see Appendix 1), it was stated that one issue with the Brief that was being composed regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, was that the program aimed to operate at a time of year when sea temperatures were highest and white shark fatalities were lowest. The rate of only 1 in 27 fatalities occurring during this period of year was provided. This relates to the research because it, once again, demonstrates that the program was designed to operate in a time that statistically had the lowest risk of shark related fatality. This specific document is evidence of the DE’s awareness of this.
Chapter 5: Results 100 7 January 2014
The DPC stated on 7 January 2014 in an email to the DE that the DF intend to use size 25/0 hooks to bait drum lines in an effort to reduce bycatch. This was compared to the hook size of 14/0 or 16/0 that was used in Queensland. Once again, this is evidence that an increased hook size was considered an appropriate way to reduce bycatch, despite later criticisms that this was not supported by any evidence, had the potential to increase post-release mortalities and that the larger hook sized later proved to still be effective at catching non-target specimens.
7 January 2014
A document dated 7 January 2014 was provided by the DE (see Appendix 1), in which no context was provided. The document was titled ‘Cottesloe Beach Water Temperature and Wetsuit Guide’ and provides the weather estimated and dressing guides for 6 January 2014 and includes a graph of historical sea temperatures. It is unclear how this document is relevant to the considerations of the DE in granting an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). It could potentially relate to previous discussions about the ocean temperatures during peak season and the reduced likelihood of white sharks being in the area, however, this is unclear. This is assumed because that seems to be the only other discussion about ocean temperatures and both documents were retrieved from the DE.
7 January 2014
In an email exchange between the DE and DPC, in which the DE was seeking clarification of exact wording required for the exemption, the DPC, once again, stated that the hook size of 25/0, compared to 14/0 to 16/0 used in QLD, was designed to reduce potential bycatch. This has been included in this narrative because it is further evidence of the use of a larger hook as being considered an effective measure in reducing bycatch, despite later criticisms that there was no evidence to support this claim.
Chapter 5: Results 101 8 January 2014
An email exchange collected from the DE (see Appendix 1), in which parties have been redacted and are therefore, unidentifiable, revealed that advice on demonstrating that the program was a matter of ‘national interest’ rather than ‘public interest’ was to include information on the impact that shark attacks were having on business. In the response to this email it was stated that ‘the problem with shark attack reports/analysis is that numbers are so low that the statistical significance argument is very weak’. This is highly relevant to the research because it further supports the idea that the DE’s decision to grant an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) was predominantly motivated by potential economic harms associated with the incidence of shark bites in WA. It is also interesting because, while this appears to have been a key consideration, at no stage in the research was the researcher able to locate any evidence to support this.
In this email exchange it was requested that the Brief avoid language about ‘shark attacks’, as this was deemed ‘more appropriate for sensationalist journalism than a considered regulatory decision’. Furthermore, it was suggested that the decision by the DE to grant an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) to the DPC be ‘future proofed’ in the event of a future court appeal. It was suggested that this be done by incorporating some potential arguments as to why the exemption may not have been a matter of national interest, with counterarguments, to allow the Minister to demonstrate that he has considered all aspects. The suggestions about use of language relates closely to the rhetoric of claims making and the way that claims are constructed through language that provokes emotions and image clusters. It is noted that the government deliberately sought to avoid the use of this language and was aware of the media’s tendency to use these techniques in representing topical issues.
In the DE’s role in compiling the briefing package for the Minister regarding the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) exemption, is was stated that, while the proposal suggested a maximum of 72 deployed drum lines, this was more likely to be closer to 36 as it was understood by the DE that the WASG only possessed 50 and would keep some aside for loss and damage and emergency lines. This has been noted because this appears to have been a considered factor in granting the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) exemption, although the WASG did indeed deploy up to 72 drum lines, meaning
Chapter 5: Results 102 that the potential impacts may have been underestimated by the DE.
10 January 2014
On 10 January 2014, the WA Government held a meeting regarding the deployment, management and associated services operations for drum lining. The attendees at the meeting included five representatives from the DPC, one from each of the DPW, DF, SLSWA and Tourism WA and three from WA Water Police. This information, located on a 'Draft Agenda' document from the DBCA, is useful in highlighting who the key stakeholders in the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 were.
10 January 2014
In a document from 10 January 2014 retrieved from the DE (see Appendix 1) a series of recommendations are made to the Minster or Environment regarding granting the exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) that would be required for the WASG to pre-emptively catch and kill white sharks. In this document, a series of key points for consideration are provided for determining if granting an exemption would be ‘in the national interest’, as required by the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). One of these considerations discussed was the impact that white shark attacks had on state tourism, given that ‘going to the beach’ was listed as one of the top five leisure activities by overnight visitors, particularly international visitors, to the Perth and south west regions. It was argued that the ‘unprecedented shark-related fatalities’ of recent years had produced a situation where the issue of public safety and potential resulting impact on the economy through loss of tourism opportunities and commercial ventures was significant. Again, this is further evidence of potential economic impacts having been a key consideration in the DE’s decision to grant an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) to the WASG.
Unknown date in January 2014
In January 2014, the Minister for Environment sent a letter to the Premier granting an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). In this letter the Minister stated that it was an acceptable and desirable part of Australian culture and way of life that each person and each family understand the risks of swimming, surfing and boating in open sea and that individuals must take responsibility for their own safety as a matter of culture and practice. However, it was found that
Chapter 5: Results 103 evidence provided by the WASG demonstrated a clear statistical increase in shark bite events in WA to the point where it was determined to be within the national interest to have an exemption under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) granted for public safety and economic reasons. Finally, the Minister stated that ‘one does not have to agree with a policy to accept that a national interest exemption is warranted to protect against imminent threat to life, economic damage and public safety more generally’. This is an interesting comment because it seems to imply that the Minster for Environment, himself, does not support the policy. This document also suggests that the DE takes a similar stance to the City of Cockburn in 2012 on the matter of individual responsibility for safety on behalf of beach goers.
14 January 2014
On 14 January 2014, in an email from the City of Cockburn Manager for Infrastructure Services to an unknown party, public perception based on preliminary research is provided. Screenshots of 22 public comments from discussion forums have been included. In these comments, the exclusion net is generally supported for safety reasons and low environmental impacts. Of these comments, 15 were clearly in favour of the exclusion nets with only two clearly opposed. Five comments specifically expressed concern for environmental impacts and three mentioned it as a preferable option to a cull. These comments will be discussed in more detail in the Part 2 of this chapter.
15 January 2014
The following day, the Cockburn Manager for Infrastructure Services sent a follow up email with attached screenshots of 24 more public comments on the exclusion nets. Of these, 20 express clear support for exclusion nets with eight specifically stating that it is preferable to culling. Only two comments oppose the initiative: one due to concerns for overcrowding and beach cleanliness and the other because there is no history of shark attacks at Coogee and therefore, the initiative could not be justified.
While public comments will be considered as a separate dataset later in this chapter, they have been included in this summary narrative because these comments were specifically considered by the City of Cockburn in discussions about shark hazard mitigation and suggest that the City
Chapter 5: Results 104 was informed by these specific comments in their operations. It suggests that the City of Cockburn was concerned with the public opinion of residents and that they understood there was a level of concern about both shark related hazards and environmental impacts of shark hazard mitigation strategies.
15 January 2014
The Office of the Minister for Environment provided the DPC with a document titled ‘Statement of reasons for exemption from section 158 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)’ on 15 January 2014. This document considered the evidence provided to the Minister in considering granting an exemption and his findings. In response to a study provided by the DF regarding a statistical increase in shark bite frequency off WA since 1995, it is noted that ‘generally the frequency of white shark sightings reduces during the January – April period’. This is relevant for the research because this is the exact timeframe in which the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 operated as a policy designed in response to shark bite fatalities for which white sharks were the only confirmed responsible species.
This document also mentioned ‘substantial public concern about the safety of water-based activities in Western Australia’ as a reason for granting an exemption despite no evidence for this being provided in the document and the researcher’s inability to find any evidence to support this through other avenues in the research (See Appendix 1). Furthermore, there was a referral to ‘anecdotal evidence’ from the tourism industry that shark bite frequency was impacting local businesses. This was supported by reference to the recreational diving industry which had reported substantial declines in business (although it does not say where this was reported to) and a specific dive operator who reported a 90% decline in business to the media. This is further evidence of the government’s ongoing consideration that shark bite incidents were having on the tourism industry, despite the lack of hard data to support it.
There was the consideration of Australia as a country ‘with a strong beach culture where water- based activities are carried out along most of its coastlines’ and this culture being a ‘key drawcard for international visitors’. This relates to the rhetoric of loss that is identified in the data collected from the media, which is discussed in Part 3 of this chapter. It was also argued that
Chapter 5: Results 105 the increase in shark bite frequency to ‘well above historic norms’ (an increase of a maximum of two fatalities per year) had led to the exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) due to the public safety of people in Western Australia being a matter of national significance.
This document also demonstrated consideration of non-lethal alternative methods of shark hazard mitigation. However, it was noted that non-lethal measures ‘have not proven feasible in reducing shark strikes to date’. This is interesting because the effectiveness of the drum lining used in the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was also not proven to reduce shark strikes, however, must have been considered more ‘feasible’ for other reasons. It is unclear what these reasons were.
Finally, in consideration of the timeliness of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, it was argued that ‘In order to provide confidence to the public about the safety of water-based activities additional shark mitigation measures are needed at the time of greatest use, which is over the summer and autumn months’. Again, this may suggest that the government was more concerned with public perceptions of safety than actual public safety given that this was statistically the safest time of year for recreational ocean use.
16 January 2014
In email correspondence dated 16 January 2014, between the DPC and the Office of the Minister for Environment, the document described directly above is discussed. In response to being provided with the document, a member of the DPC noted that there had been the deletion of a paragraph ‘which noted the humane killing of white, bull and tiger sharks greater than 3m in length’. This is relevant to the research because, as will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter, animal welfare was a concern of the public regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, however, welfare related concerns have rarely been identified elsewhere in the research and here the government has deliberately removed discussion of it.
17 January 2014
The DPC forwarded a document to the DPW on 17 January 2014 titled ‘Specifications/Statement of Requirements’ which outlined the specifics of the drum lining operations. One requirement
Chapter 5: Results 106 was for data logs to record times, locations, species caught, sex, dangerousness and their condition. The condition of captured animals was required to be listed as ‘dead, near dead or alive’, however it is noted that at no stage in the research was the researcher able to locate more specific guidelines for how condition was to be determined. It is also mentioned that target specimens and bycatch considered unlikely to survive release would be ‘humanely destroyed’, although this is not discussed in further detail. As animal welfare concerns have presented as a critique of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 in this research (see Chapter 5 and 6), this may be evidence of a lack of detailed consideration of animal welfare on behalf of the WASG in implementing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
21 January 2014
In response to an application placed to the DPW for a license under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) and Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 (WC Regulations) the Department provided a document outlining their consideration of the granting of such license. Information regarding who placed the application had been redacted but it was assumed to be the independent fishing contractors responsible for operating the South-West MMA as the document referred to this party entering into a contract with the state to operate drum lines. In this document, expected environmental impacts were also listed as being considered minimal, again, due, in part, to the large hook size aimed at reducing bycatch. This is evidence of another department (DPW) considering hook size as an appropriate bycatch prevention technique despite not being supported by any evidence (and eventually leading to the capture of a significant number of non- target animals).
26 January 2014
In an email chain received through an application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) to the DBCA, the DPC informed unknown recipients that the private fishing contractor had caught and destroyed a 3m bull shark by firing 4 rounds into it. It was noted that three boats, presumed to be the media followed the fishing vessel and, while it appeared the shark was still alive, this was 'simply the action of the body against the wake of the boat'. This document provides further evidence of the media’s focus on drum lining and further evidence of the government’s
Chapter 5: Results 107 awareness of this. It might also relate to animal welfare arguments, given that four rounds were fired into the animal.
28 January 2014
In an email chain beginning on 28 January 2014, the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River discussed issues with shark hazard protocols. It was revealed that five LGs in the South West of WA had been in consultation about shark hazard procedures and the need for the WASG to assist with 'consultation, direction, alignment and communication' in developing a coordinated approach to managing shark hazards.
One member from the Shire Council informed an unknown third party that the push for procedural improvements was 'not a knee-jerk reaction' to a bite incident that occurred in the months prior. The email chain revealed that the DF had decided not to take responsibility for beach closures for liability reasons and suggested that LGs should be responsible for developing their own response protocols in consultation with SLSWA and DPW, as stakeholders.
A staff member from the Council stated that 'there seems to be a very big gap between what the Minister’s Office believes the process to be and what actually occurs on the ground'. It was noted that the issues the state needed to be informed of were that there were differences in shark sighting protocols between LGs that caused 'considerable public confusion and lend to decreased sense of public safety' and that LGs were lacking state consultation in imminent threat policy, meaning they did not know when to issue beach signage or closures.
The WASG was criticised for refusing responsibility for assessing risks associated with regular shark sightings, given that they had assumed responsibility for assessing risks associated with drum lining and the 'shark kill policy'. The Shire Council stated that they saw 'no logic in this' and that LGs were not equipped to assess risks from shark sightings because they had 'no marine life or ocean expertise' and the ocean was in state jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Council expressed concerns about information on the DF’s website that claimed that SLSWA has state-wide standardised operating procedures and that LGs had standardised beach signage, because the SLSWA operating procedures were only appropriate for
Chapter 5: Results 108 metropolitan areas and 'entirely impractical in regional areas' and standardised beach closure signage did not exist. The Council was also concerned about a flow-chart on the DF’s website that also alluded to the fact that the WASG was required to consult with local authorities and SLSWA to determine if shark sightings were deemed to be 'high risk' or 'low risk', given that 'this is not happening, nor has it ever happened'.
Overall, this email chain was useful to the research in highlighting the gross lack of coordination between different LGs and levels of government. It is further evidence of the differences of opinions between local and state level governments towards shark hazard mitigation and may suggest that the state government was acting in response to outside pressures in their involvement in the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, given that they had previously opted not to be involved in shark hazard mitigation policy.
29 January 2014
In an email chain from the DPC to an unknown party, the sender informed the recipient that after four and a half days of drum lining operations, two sharks had been caught, only one of which was a target species. It was stated that the DPC was not aware of any media coverage of the catch and requested that the information be treated as confidential. Again, this is a document that demonstrates media focus on the topic and the government’s awareness of this.
30 January 2014
In an email sent from one DPC staff member to another, a trip accompanying the private fishing contractor on their vessel operating the SW MMA was outlined. It was noted that a deckhand on the vessel was found using his personal mobile phone to take photos of bycatch and was advised that this was not appropriate, and they were not to be disseminated. This may have related to the level of public scrutiny that the program was experiencing. The previous destruction of one target specimen was also outlined, where it was stated that the contractor dispatched two rounds of the firearm into the shark after which he was confident that it was dead. It was not stated where on the shark’s body these rounds were fired or the length of time between shots or how long it took for the animal to die. As welfare related concerns have featured in this research from other stakeholders (see Part 2 of Chapter 5) regarding the operation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -
Chapter 5: Results 109 2014, this relates to the research given that it does not appear to have been a primary concern of the WASG.
31 January 2014
The DPC informed an unknown party via email on 31 January 2014 that a 'number of media vessels' were following the DF fishing vessel in close proximity and that the catch and release of a tiger shark was expected to be in the media shortly after. Again, this is further evidence of the role that the media placed in the construction of pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA as a social problem.
7 February 2014
On 7 February 2014, the OEPA informed the DPC via letter that they were required to assess the proposed WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and determine the significance of the effect that it would have on the environment if it were to be implemented. The DPC was informed that the DPW and DF were consulted for further information on the proposal. This has been noted because it is one of the few times that the DPW has been mentioned.
12 February 2014
On 12 February 2014, the CMS Secretariat from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) contacted the DE requesting confirmation that the DE was granting an EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) exemption under the ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ clause. The DE was reminded that it was the Australian Government itself that nominated white sharks for protection under the CMS because of the findings of a study that indicated ‘the removal of just four great white sharks greatly reduced and possibly eliminated the entire local population of great white sharks’. It was stated that ‘it may be useful to know whether your government, in granting the exemption, has established the number of great whites that could be taken without operating to the disadvantage of the species, a condition of the extraordinary circumstance clause’. The CMS Secretariat informed the DE that they had received numerous comments from the media, NGOs and members of the public regarding the matter. This document is relevant to the research because it provides evidence of the DE’s awareness of apprehension about the program on behalf of the
Chapter 5: Results 110 UNEP, as well as NGOs, the media and public citizens. It is assumed that the comments referred to by the CMS Secretariat were in opposition to the program, because it is an unlikely agency to contact in support of it. Furthermore, it is evidence of the DE’s previously expressed concerns about white shark populations numbers, suggesting that the DE had previously been proactive about protecting the specific species that the drum lines sought to catch. Since there is no evidence of white shark population increases that this research is aware of, this is an interest shift in position from the DE.
18 February 2014
In a Legislative Assembly Meeting on 18 February 2014, ALP Member Dave Kelly asked the Premier why the drum lines off Rottnest Island had been removed for the Rottnest Channel Swim. In answer to this question the Premier stated that ‘a fish will swim to where the bait is’ and ‘as if anyone would leave baited hooks in the pathway of the swimmers’. This is highly relevant to the research because the ineffectiveness of drum lines at enhancing bather safety or their likelihood of actually increasing the risk to ocean users was a leading critique of the policy that will be discussed more in the following sections.
In the same meeting, Barnett claimed that the program had caught ‘no bycatch at all’ out of the 66 sharks it had caught by this date. When this was debated by members who stated that there must have been bycatch for most of these sharks to have been released, Barnett repeated that there was ‘none at all’ and ‘there was no bycatch’. This is interesting because it suggests that the Premier did not have a thorough understanding of the policy given that more than half of the drum line catch at this time was bycatch, yet he only considered non-shark bycatch to be bycatch.
18 February 2014
On 18 February 2014, an email exchange occurred between the DPC and an unknown party, in which operational notes and catch data were discussed. It was noted that the unknown party enquired as to how the WASG ensured that the private contractor abided by the requirements of the tender. It was stated that the DPC included in their operational notes that one specimen had already been misidentified as a bull shark, rather than tiger shark, and that this misidentification
Chapter 5: Results 111 of behalf of the private SW contractor was ‘attributable to the intense media scrutiny the contractor experienced at the time of catching the first shark’. The DPC claimed that the research information being collected during the drum lining was contributing to building an understanding of the species patterns, of movements and population size estimates. This is interesting because it raises questions about the competency of the operators and therefore, the reliability of the catch data. It is also interesting that the fault was placed on the media.
18 February 2014
On 18 February 2014, the OEPA received a submission from the Humane Society International (HSI), in which the HSI expressed their opposition to the proposed policy and requested that the EPA find the policy environmentally unacceptable. The submission refers to the program’s lack of scientific justification in killing sharks protected by federal and state laws and international agreements and highlighted concern for the impact of removing apex predators on a marine ecosystem. Furthermore, the submission claimed that the DPC had overlooked potential impacts on the protected Mako shark and understated potential impacts on turtles, dolphins and non- target sharks. The HSI stated that the policy’s risk assessment of these facts ‘lack scientific rigour’ and exclude relevant scientific information, including recommendations from an independent report commissioned by the proponent (DPC) themselves, suggesting such methods should not be used due to high risk to non-target species. This is relevant to the research because the HSI has 60,000 supporters internationally and therefore, their opposition to the proposal is representative of a significant number of people. In addition, this is further evidence of the key criticisms of the policy.
The fact that large hooks were not overly effective in stopping undersized bycatch is mentioned and the HSI questioned why more focus was not being given to non-lethal hazard mitigation measures. This is important for the research because it appears to be consistent with public opinion that non-lethal measures are preferable and is further evidence of the argument that the ‘large hook size’ was not scientifically supported by evidence as a means to reduce bycatch. The HSI argued that the WA Government ‘have neglected to follow responsible process and the rushed delivery of the policy highlights this’. Finally, that HSI stated that ‘local, national, and international citizens, ocean-users and scientists have spoken out against this policy, sparking the
Chapter 5: Results 112 world’s largest protest over a single species’. This document is also relevant because the argument that the policy was ‘rushed’ may relate to the Issue-Attention Cycle that was discussed in the Literature Review.
18 February 2014
On the same day, the OEPA received another submission from an unidentified party, opposing the policy and requesting the immediate cessation of drum lining, to be replaced by a full scientific study into the movements and life cycles of shark species through the tagging and monitoring of sharks in WA. The submission referred to the program as an ‘unwarranted and knee-jerk reaction’ to a ‘perceived fear’. This submission also cited the ‘cruel’ way in which drum lines can kill and injure animals, lack of scientific evidence of potential environmental impacts, the potential for drum lines to lure more sharks into the area, the waste of a potential food source for overseas markets by dumping sharks at sea and immense public outcry as other reasons that the program should not be supported. While the sender of this document is unknown, this critique of the policy is consistent with many of the key criticisms of the policy identified later in this chapter.
18 February 2014
In a Legislative Council Meeting on 18 February 2018, Labor member Sue Ellery asked Fisheries Minister Ken Baston if he agreed with Phil Edman’s comments about the ‘shark cull’ not guaranteeing an increase in safety to bathers. In his response Baston stated that drum lines were ‘a tool of a toolbox’ and that it was the hope that sharks would choose to take the bait on a drum line rather than a person. The comments made by Phil Edman will be discussed in more detail in Part 3 of this chapter. It is noted that the question was not directly answered.
Later in the same Meeting, Phil Edman repeated his November 2013 claims that divers and surfers should use personal shark deterrents as a means to take responsibility for their own safety. He also stated that he took part in a meeting with various WA Fishing Organisations and the Minister for Fisheries which discussed the reinstatement of commercial shark fishing as a way to reduce shark populations and allow those caught to be sold for consumption. This is relevant to this research because it is evidence of the WASG considering the commercial fishing
Chapter 5: Results 113 industry as stake holders in shark hazard mitigation and its consideration of alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques during the operation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, despite its eventual decision to recommend the continuation of the program into the 2014 – 2017 period.
18 February 2014
In a media release on the same day, Ken Baston announced that the hook and bait system used for the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 were successful at reducing the level of bycatch. This claim was made with only 17 specimens from the 66 caught by that date being of the target size and species. As previously discussed, this policy has been criticised for lacking measurable goals and this claim is further evidence of this as it was deemed ‘successful’ at reducing bycatch with a bycatch rate of 74% by this time.
19 February 2014
In a Legislative Assembly Meeting in the WA Parliament on 19 February 2014, Australian Labor Party Member Rita Saffioti criticised the WA Government for their SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. She stated that ‘it was a rushed decision based on a media strategy, not on a strategy to protect people’s lives. Everything about it tells me that it was driven through the media office or through the media itself’. She referred to the Premier’s ‘very weird media stunt with the massive hook’ and argued that Barnett’s admission that baited hooks (and therefore drum lines) attract sharks suggests that the WASG was intentionally endangering swimmers.
Furthermore, Saffioti argued that while the government initially insisted that the policy was supported by the ‘silent majority’, it had changed its stance to say that implementing drum lining was an ‘unpopular’ and ‘tough’ decision. She argued that this suggested that the government was aware of the lack of public support behind the policy. When Liberal Party member Kim Hames rebutted that the policy continued to be supported by the silent majority, ALP Member Paul Papalia stated that if the government ‘had polling and the majority supported it, you’d be releasing it’. This is important to note because, as will be discussed in the following chapters, all poll findings located through this research suggest a lack of support for the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Chapter 5: Results 114 In listing the perceived short comings of the WA Government during the 2013-2014 summer period, Saffioti described the WA SHMDLP as ‘the shambolic, ill-thought out media stunt turned public relations disaster that is otherwise known as the shark cull’. She suggested that whoever advised the Premier to pose with a drum line hook should not be employed by the government. This is consistent with ongoing criticism of the WA Premier that was identified throughout the research.
Finally, at a later stage in the meeting, ALP Member Mark McGowan claimed that ‘the shark issue has divided the community and created hysteria’. He further criticised the ongoing contradictions made by the government concerning the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, with specific mention of the Premier’s admission that drum lines were removed for the Rottnest Channel Swim because drum lines attract sharks, despite the Minister for Tourism claiming it was to prevent swimmers being injured on hooks. This is noted because inconsistencies and contradictions were an ongoing criticism of the policy.
20 February 2014
On 20 February 2014, the WA Labor Party submitted a letter of opposition to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 to the OEPA. In this submission, the Labor Party called for the program to be immediately suspended in the absence of a full assessment by the EPA and for the EPA to find the policy ‘environmentally unacceptable’. The first argument provided was that the program lacked scientific support, in that there were no scientific studies to suggest that the program would decrease the risk to human ocean-users. This was supported with reference to the Hawaiian cull. WA Labor also stated that, in a report by Bond University commissioned by the DF, drum lines were specifically recommended against due to potential environmental impacts. This is interesting for the research because it is evidence of the WA Government’s decision to oppose scientific advice that they themselves had commissioned in implementing the policy.
Other key criticisms of the program included the risk to dolphins, diminution of breeding populations, potential for program to lure sharks into the area, lack of evidence suggesting rise in white shark numbers and impact of removing apex predators from an ecosystem. Finally, the WA Labor Party claimed to have received 6,000 emails opposing the cull and referred to an
Chapter 5: Results 115 electronic petition with 32,000 signatures, hard copy petition with 8,000 signatures and local, national and international protests to support their claim that the public opposed the program. This is important for the research because it further highlights public opposition to the cull.
20 February 2014
On the same day, the OEPA received another submission from an unidentified party opposing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This submission cited the most frequently occurring arguments against drum lining, including defiance of international laws and immorality and ineffectiveness of culling. However, this submission also argued that white sharks are a source of tourism capital for the country and reducing their numbers may have negative economic ramifications on the tourism industry. This is relevant to the research because it is the first time that a counter argument about tourism has been made, which will reappear in the following sections of this chapter.
20 February 2014
On 20 February 2014 the OEPA also received a submission from the Animal Defender’s Office (ADO) opposing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This submission was predominantly concerned with environmental impacts associated with drum lining and the lack of scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of the policy at enhancing bather safety. This has been included in this narrative as further evidence of opposition to the policy on behalf of environmental groups.
20 February 2014
On 20 February 2014, an incident involving the alleged concealment of a killed baby dolphin by the WASG received attention on Twitter and resulted in a media release by the WA Greens Party and several emails exchanged within the DPC and between the DPC and Office of the Premier for WA. On Twitter and in the Greens media release, it was alleged that on the morning of 20 February, a surf skier saw a baby dolphin in close proximity to drum lines, followed 20 minutes later by a Fisheries vessel pulling something that she believed may have been the dolphin onto the boat and covering it with a tarpaulin before heading out to sea for disposal. In the media release, the Greens Minister stated that they would confront the WA Government in Parliament
Chapter 5: Results 116 about what was being concealed under the tarp and queried as to whether this was a baby dolphin or potential first white shark killed on drum lines. The Greens accused the Government of secrecy and ‘hiding it’s catch’ and demanded that they reveal what was hidden under the tarp. The DPC responded to these claims in an email stating that the DF confirmed that the animal was a 2.3 metre tiger shark that was covered by a tarpaulin because it was found dead on the drum line. They dispute that there is photographic evidence of the animal being a dolphin. This is potentially relevant to the research because it highlights the intense scrutiny on behalf of the Greens and the public over the policy. It also highlights the role that social media may have played in the attention that was given to the policy.
23 February 2014
The DE received an email from Sea Shepherd on 23 February 2014, regarding two incidents concerning the operations of the private fishing contractor employed to manage and patrol the SW MMA. The first incident outlined occurred on 22 February 2014, in which male tiger shark was discovered distressed and entangled in rope on a drum line. The shark reportedly threw up its entire stomach and contents, which Sea Shepherd claims to have produced an ‘oil like substance that smells and looks just like the burley that is used to lure great white sharks in for tagging’. It was also claimed that this shark was not measured. This is relevant to the research because it supports the argument that drum lining had the potential to lure sharks into the vicinity of popular surfing beaches, as the program was heavily criticised for.
A second incident on the same day way also referred to, in which an undersized tiger shark had been hooked through the top of its head. It was alleged that the fishing contractor ‘barbarically started hacking away at the shark’s mouth and head, completely butchering any chance of this shark being able to feed again’. The shark then sank to the bottom of the ocean. Sea Shepherd queried as to whether this shark would be included in the ‘alive/released’ catch data statistics and that their investigations suggest that it would be likely that approximately 42 tiger sharks had been killed during the first 3 weeks of the program only, rather than the figure of 36 from the catch data and the anticipated 10-20 for the entire season. This is relevant to the research because, while anecdotal, this may support the argument that the use of ‘large hooks’ would have resulted in more severe injuries to undersized animals and therefore, a higher post-release
Chapter 5: Results 117 mortality rate than anticipated by the DPC. It also relates to animal welfare concerns that feature in Chapter 5. Sea Shepherd also alleged that the private contractor was using fish, rather than shark as bait (as per the policy as a means to reduce bycatch) and had therefore, failed to abide by the terms of the exemption. They also suggested that the use of large hooks as a means of reducing bycatch was not proving successful. Furthermore, with regards to public safety concerns, Sea Shepherd argued that the WA Government had contradicted itself by implementing drum lines for three reasons: the DF had previously stated that sharks can only be seen off WA coastlines if they are lured in by bait; by removing the drum lines for the Rottnest Channel Swim it appeared that drum lines were perceived by the government as a way to attract sharks; and for drum lines causing such distress to sharks that they throw up their stomach contents producing a burley-like substance near popular swimming beaches. In addition, sharks on drum lines had been found with bite marks from larger sharks, further suggesting that drum lines themselves and sharks caught on drum lines act as bait for large sharks. Finally, they claimed that a tiger shark had never been responsible for a human fatality in the south-west of Perth Metropolitan area and that all white shark fatalities had occurred outside the drum line trial period. This is all relevant to the research because it highlights the contradictions within the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and supports the argument that the policy was not well thought out or supported by science.
26 February 2014
On 26 February 2014, the OEPA was in correspondence with the DPC regarding the intended amount of time that the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 would operate for. In this document, it was clear that the DPC and DF had provided different intended timelines for the operation of the program and the OEPA sought clarification on this matter. This is evidence of a lack of coordination between departments and suggests that the DPC may have ‘neglected to follow responsible process’ as earlier stated by the HSI.
4 March 2014
In an email from the DPC to unknown recipients, the DPC outlined their intentions to continue the drum lining program into the 2014-2015 summer period and suggested that a referral and
Chapter 5: Results 118 assessment by the EPA could be conducted in time for the following summer if submitted promptly. It was stated that the WASG was working closely with the DE. This document is relevant to the research because it provides early evidence of the State’s decision to continue drum lining and suggests that the DE was supportive of the continuation of the program.
12 March 2014
On 12 March 2014, the OEPA informed the DPC that the decision had been made not to subject the proposal to an environmental impact assessment process despite the proposal raising ‘a number of environmental issues’. A document outlining the reasons for this decision was included and listed the level of public concern surrounding the program as a key consideration in determining whether to assess the process. The OEPA acknowledged that they received approximately 10,000 comments through the Consultation Hub, 450 emails and 12,000 comments forwarded from the WA Conservation Council predominantly opposing the drum lining, regardless of the duration or timing of the program. However, preliminary OEPA investigation found that the risk to the environment from the program was negligible, meaning that the program did not need to be subjected to formal assessment. One justification for this was that the program used ‘large hooks’ to minimize bycatch. This is interesting because it seems contradictory to state that the proposal raised a number of environmental issues, but then to determine that it would not be assessed, in part, due to a measure to reduce bycatch that was heavily criticised for not being scientifically supported and proved to still be capable of catching undersized sharks. It is also interesting that the level of public concern, as a key consideration in deciding whether to assess the policy, was acknowledged to be high, but that the policy was still not assessed.
19 March 2014
A DPW Senior Wildlife Officer provided a report outlining their experience accompanying the DF vessel operating the Metropolitan MMA on 19 March 2014. It is stated that the two tiger sharks caught during the operation were ‘handled with all due care, treated humanely, data recorded and released live, both sharks were observed, briefly at least, swimming post release in a healthy condition’. This is evidence of the DPW’s perception of the level of humaneness
Chapter 5: Results 119 offered by the program, however, it is clear that the primary concern of this Department is the risk of whale entanglements.
24 March 2014
On 24 March 2014, the DPC responded to the DE regarding the allegations made by Sea Shepherd about the private contractor employed to manage the operations of the SW MMA. Investigations on behalf of the DPC included review of footage provided by Sea Shepherd, a police report submitted by the contractor involving a private vessel (assumed to have been operated by Sea Shepherd), ‘information feedback’, tender documentation and catch data. Regarding the first incident, the DPC determined that it was unknown if the shark vomited up its’ stomach contents but that it’s gut was cut open to aid with sea lice decomposition, the claims that the shark was not measured were false and that a police report was submitted claiming that a private vessel impeded on the operations of the contractor including the deployment of a free diver who swam under the contractor’s boat to take photos. This is interesting to the research because, if it was a regular practice that sharks have their guts cut open to aid in decomposition, this is evidence to support the argument that the program could have lured more sharks into the area of beaches, potentially reducing bather safety.
With regards to the second incident outlined by Sea Shepherd, the DPC determined that the animal was not brought on board, due to safety concerns for crew, requiring the extraction of the hook through a long pole which was characterised as ‘cumbersome’ rather than barbaric. The DPC could not confirm that footage provided of a sinking tiger shark was the same animal as described in the second incident, or a different and legally disposed of shark, as the footage was not date and time stamped. The DPC stated that it is unclear which shark the footage was of and if it was the shark described by Sea Shepherd then its’ poor condition would have been adequately noted in the catch data and it would be ‘inappropriate to use the condition of one shark to draw conclusions about the release of all sharks’. The DPC stated that there had not been any evidence provided regarding the south-west contractor acting with cruelty.
With regards to the size of drum line hooks and use of shark as bait, the DPC stated that the use of large hooks did appear to reduce bycatch and this had been discussed between the DE and
Chapter 5: Results 120 DPC. This is interesting because the researcher has not been able to locate any scientific evidence to support this claim. They argued that the tender documentation stated that the use of shark as bait is only listed as preferable and not mandatory and therefore, the south-west contractor had not breached the terms of the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) exemption (although they also confirm that the contractor DID trial shark as bait).
The DPC stated that the removal of drum lines for the Rottnest Channel Swim was ‘at the request of the organisers of the swim based on the anxiety being expressed by swimmers who, for the first time, were being faced with the phenomenon of drum lines in Perth’. This is relevant to the research because it demonstrates the government’s awareness of this perception by the public but does not indicate whether the DPC itself believed that drum lining had the potential to lure sharks (however, this is contradictory to later claims made by the Premier).
The DPC confirmed that hooked sharks had been predated on by larger sharks, as claimed by Sea Shepherd, but discounted this as the norm and argued that the conclusions that this means drum lines lured sharks into the area were ‘questionable’. Furthermore, Queensland and South Africa were used to support the use of drum lining as a modern approach to shark hazard mitigation. And finally, it is argued that while there had never been a confirmed tiger shark fatality in the Western Australia, eight fatalities since 2004 have not had the species responsible confirmed, meaning that it is not known that a tiger shark was not responsible for any of these fatalities.
12 March 201
In an email from the DPC to the DE regarding the referral for the implementation of the drum line strategy in the following year, the DPC stated that the 25/0 hook size (as a means to reduce bycatch) would not be expected to change in the following year. This is interesting because the researcher has not been able to locate any evidence to suggest this method of reducing bycatch was successful and it was one of the lead criticisms of the program.
17 March 2014
On 17 March 2014, two emails within the DPC were sent with attached catch data from the time. The first email stated that there was no requirement for catch data to be announced via media
Chapter 5: Results 121 release or email and that it would simply be posted to the DF website on a regular basis. The second email requested that this information be ‘used for internal purposes only’. This could be indicative of the government wanting to avoid attracting attention to the catch data or WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 more generally, given the level of scrutiny it was experiencing.
25 March 2014
In an email chain beginning on March 25, 2014, a DPC staff member stated to the DE that there were personal details about several DPC staff members in the draft proposal and stressed that the submitted proposal was a draft only and not for release to the public. The apprehension around this was due to phone calls and emails that several ‘of us – who were involved in the implementation of the current strategy – received from a wide cross section of the community, and also, the ease by which our private addresses and phone numbers can be discovered’. This is relevant to the research because it may highlight the attention that was given to this policy and a level of concern about public opposition to the policy.
3 April 2014
In a Legislative Council Meeting on 3 April 2014, Liberal Party member, Donna Faragher, on behalf of the Minister for Tourism answered questions from Lynn MacLaren. MacLaren asked if there was any evidence to suggest that fatal attacks by sharks in WA had caused a decline in tourism numbers in WA between 2012 and 2013. Faragher stated that the numbers of interstate, intrastate and international tourist visitors increased during that period along with overall holiday and leisure tourism. She stated that while numbers had not declined, there had been ‘substantial public concern about the safety of water-based activities in WA and anecdotal evidence that the frequency of shark strikes was impacting on WA businesses’. This is highly relevant to the research given that the potential impact of shark bite incidents on tourism was one of the primary reasons that the Australian Government granted WA and exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth).
Chapter 5: Results 122 8 April 2014
In response to a submission from the DPC to the DE to extend the WA SHMDLP into the three following years (2014 – 2017), the DE sent a Receipt of Referral letter to the DPC informing them that the proposal was received, and a decision would be made, following a 10 day public consultation, as to whether the proposal would be either:
a) a controlled action that would require assessment and approval under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth); b) not a controlled action and was able to be implement only as described in the referral; c) does not require approval under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), or; d) that the proposal is clearly unacceptable due to clear impacts it would have on matters protected under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth).
8 April 2014
In a Legislative Assembly Meeting on 8 April 2014, Lynn MacLaren asked Ken Baston if the government would consider amending the policy to ensure hooks were only baited during the day in an effort to reduce the number of undersized sharks being injured or dying from being hooked on drum lines for extended periods. It was suggested that the WASG should do this as part of its exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) to minimise environmental harms caused by drum lining. To this, the Minister for Fisheries advised that the government would not consider this as it was already complying with the requirements for the exemption.
30 April 2014
In an email from the DPC to unknown parties, dated 30 April 2014, the DPC thanked those involved in the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 for their work. The DPC stated that the program operated through 'periods of intense activity and significant media and community attention' and referred to the continuation of work that would be needed if the EPA and DE approve the referral for the continuation of the program. This document is useful for the research because it again, highlights the government's concern with media focus and further demonstrates the DPC's position that the program was successful.
Chapter 5: Results 123 7 May 2014
Following the cessation of the WA SHMDLP trial in April 2014, the government released a media statement on 7 May 2014 stating that the policy had been deemed successful. In the media release, titled ‘Figures support shark mitigation strategy’, Ken Baston stated that the policy ‘is successfully restoring the confidence among Western Australian beachgoers and greatly contributing to scientific knowledge about shark behaviour’. He argued that ‘drum lines had gone some way to restoring confidence among swimmers, surfers and divers’ and that they had ‘proved effective in complementing the other strategies’. Baston stated that of the 172 sharks caught, 50 sharks were target specimens and a further 95 were larger than two metres. As previously discussed, the policy was criticised for lacking measurable goals, making it interesting that it had been determined successful. The focus on sharks over 2m in length is also noted because the policy sought to target dangerous sharks 3m and above in length. This seems to imply that these sharks also posed a threat to swimmers, however, if this was the government’s perception then the 3 m minimum length appears arbitrary. Furthermore, Baston stated that Western Australia’s ‘beaches are some of the best in the world and (he wants) future generations and visitors to WA to be able to enjoy them without the constant fear of shark attack’. This relates to the theoretical framework of this research, particularly the rhetoric of entitlement.
8 May 2014
The DE sent an email to the DPC informing of the need for the drum line proposal to be reviewed by the EPA prior to approval, with an attached formal letter regarding the subject. This stated that it was ‘decided that the proposed action is a controlled action and as, such, requires assessment and a decision on approval under the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) before it can proceed’. This was because it was deemed ‘likely to have a significant impact because it targets the listed vulnerable and migratory white shark’. It is interesting that the proposal was not found to be ‘environmentally unacceptable’ by the DE given that there was immense pressure for this decision to be reached and that the program targeted a species that the DE itself had nominated for protection under the CMS.
Chapter 5: Results 124 14 May 2014
On 14 May 2014, the EPA contacted marine scientist, Barry Bruce, from the CSIRO about conducting a Peer Review of the DPC’s Public Environmental Review (PER) of the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017. This required the CSIRO to present a Peer Review Report to the EPA regarding the adequacy of the PER in addressing the requirements of the Environmental Scoping Document (ESD).
15 May 2014
On 15 May 2014, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) released an Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) for the WA Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2014-2017 policy proposal on behalf of the Director General for the DPC. The purpose of an ESD was to develop proposal-specific guidelines to direct the proponent (DPC) on the preliminary key environmental factors for the proposal that should be addressed in preparing a Public Environmental Review (PER) and to identify the necessary impact predictions for the proposal and the information on the environmental values required to carry out the assessment. This ESD was developed through extensive consultation between the EPA and DPC and the EPA’s consultation with other relevant government agencies.
The ESD stated that the primary intention of the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017 was to reduce the likelihood of shark bite events in WA. It outlined the requirement of the DPC to provide detailed justification for the program in the PER document, including ‘a genuine evaluation of options or alternatives considered’ to minimize environmental impacts. The EPA’s objective in this process was to ‘maintain diversity, geographic distribution and viability of fauna at the species and population levels’. It was determined that the DPC would be required to present scientifically sound predictions on the nature, extent and duration of the potential impacts from all activities associated with the proposal on target and non-target species. This document clearly outlines the requirements for developing an acceptable PER and is important to the research because it outlines the processes involved in assessing policy proposals and highlights the level of policy justification that was required by the DPC in order for the EPA to recommend the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017.
Chapter 5: Results 125 4 June 2014
On 4 June 2014 the City of Cockburn sent a letter to the DPC requesting further funding for the operation of the beach enclosures in Cockburn. The City stated that what was clearly apparent was the relative popularity of the enclosure, particularly for people who have been scared to enter the water due to the incidents of shark bites off the WA coastline. The letter stated that the enclosures had been successful in attracting people from outside the Coogee area and were particularly popular for family groups and school swimming programs. This is relevant to the research because it demonstrates that the DPC was aware of non-lethal alternatives to drum lining that had been received favourably by the public.
9 June 2014
On 9 June 2014 the DPC released their PER document to the public, as required by the EPA in the ESD. In this document the DPC stated that the aim of the 2013-2014 trial of the WA SHMDLP was to ‘provide additional protection from the risk of shark interactions to water users at a select number of swimming beaches and surf spots in the metropolitan and south west regions of the state’. This document outlined the proposal for the extension of this program into 2017 and stated that it would address the preliminary key environmental factor of ‘Marine Fauna’ as identified by the EPA. The DPC stated that the measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, manage and monitor potential environmental impacts were considered throughout in the PER for the purpose of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment deciding whether to approve the proposal. For this to have been achieved, the DPC was required to establish that the environmental objectives identified by the EPA could be met and that the proposal was not expected to result in unacceptable or unsustainable impacts on matters of national environmental significance.
In this document, the DPC outlined the policy proposal and discusses, in detail, the alternatives considered. They argued that the alternative of ‘take no further action’ was considered unviable from a public safety perspective following the 2013 death of a male surfer in Gracetown. While $22 million was currently being invested into research, deterrents, surveillance and other non- lethal measures, simply continuing these measures would not meet the requirement to address
Chapter 5: Results 126 public safety. In addition, they argued that gill netting was not considered because of the environmental impacts it was considered to have and that only using drum lines offered the most effective protection for water users with the least environmental impacts.
It was argued that shark exclusion nets were not appropriate for many popular beaches and surfing locations and that promoting shark deterrent technologies was not considered viable because the devices were unsuitable for use by swimmers in crowded areas, children, pregnant women and people fitted with pacemakers. Expansion of the government’s Shark Monitoring Network and increasing beach closures were not considered viable options to be solely relied upon to provide sufficient protection to bathers. The DPC also considered targeting sharks greater than 2m in length, similarly to the QLD shark control program, but determined that white sharks were predominantly fish feeders until approximately 3m in length, so decided against this alternative in an effort to reduce the potential impact on this species. This is relevant to the research because, as previously mentioned, in a media release by the DF considered the number of tiger sharks between two and three metres caught during the trial program as an indicator of the program’s success. However, this is contradictory to statements made in this PER which suggests that white sharks are the primary species of concern and they do not pose a significant threat to bathers until they reach approximately three metres in length.
Similarly, the alternative of extending the drum lining period into the winter months was not considered appropriate for environmental reasons, due to the increased likelihood of whale entanglement. In this discussion it was also noted that surfers remain active year-round and make up many of the shark bite fatalities. This is highly relevant to the research because it suggests that those using the ocean at what had previously been considered the most dangerous time of year for white shark related fatalities were not the primary concern of the government. It suggests that protecting beach goers during the summer months, in line with peak tourism season and when white sharks posed the least threat to bathers was the primary consideration for this policy. It is also noted that, in granting the exemption for the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) for the trial WA SHMDLP, the DE determined that the reduced risk to white sharks due to the timing of the policy was a key mitigating factor for the potential environmental harm of the program, although impact on white sharks in winter months has not been considered here.
Chapter 5: Results 127 Finally, alternatives of extending the program beyond 2017 or reducing monitoring of the drum lines were not considered appropriate because the program was only intended to provide a temporary increase in protection to bathers until appropriate non-lethal and detection measures were developed and because reducing the monitoring of the drum lines could result in greater environmental impacts.
Overall, the DPC argued that the proposal, ‘which includes significant risk mitigation components, was assessed as posing only either no or negligible risks to the population status of two of the three target species, the non-target species and the broader ecosystem’. This is important for the research because it clearly demonstrates the DPC’s stance on the potential environmental impacts of the proposal, which are later disputed by the scientific community.
There was also a three-page table in this document outlining matters raised during stakeholder consultation. It included what the matter was, which organisation it was raised by and how the WA Government responded. The local governments consulted included Shire of Augusta- Margaret River, Shire of Busselton, City of Bunbury, Shire of Capel and Shire of Harvey. It is noted that all of these LGs were approached for this research (see Appendix 1) and none of the Councils are listed as raising any matters in the table described.
11 June 2014
In response to an email regarding the EPA’s invitation to the City of Joondalup to make a submission for the PER, a member from the Council stated that they could not definitively say that the City of Joondalup had been effected by the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 ‘because (they) didn’t really know where they were set in proximity to (their) beaches’. This might be indicative of a low level of involvement or consultation with this LG on behalf of the DPC regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
17 June 2014
In a government media statement released on 17 June 2014, it was announced that a comprehensive review of the WA SHMDLP 2013 –2014 has found it had ‘significantly less environmental impact than other shark control programs around the world’. In this statement, the
Chapter 5: Results 128 Premier stated that the government had ‘spent considerable effort in designing an environmentally sensitive system that (was) a world leader in significantly reducing bycatch’. This is an interesting claim given that only 29% of the catch consisted of target specimens.
23 June 2014
The Town of Cottesloe held a Council Meeting in June 2014 regarding the WA SHMDLP 2014- 2017. In the meeting, a motion was made to lodge a submission with the EPA opposing the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017. The meeting outlined six issues that the town had with the policy. Firstly, it was argued that the use of baited drum lines attracts sharks, making the marine environment less safe for swimmers. Secondly, the Town opposed the policy because the trial of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 had led to the deaths of many sharks who posed little to no threat to bathers. Thirdly, it was believed that releasing undersized injured sharks from drum lines off Cottesloe beaches increased the risk to bathers. Furthermore, it was suggested that dumping shark carcasses off the coastline also increases the risk to bathers by attracting more sharks to the area. The program was also criticised for upsetting ocean ecosystems by removing species important for overall system balance and damaging the integrity of the local Fish Habitat Protection Area. Finally, the Town of Cottesloe opposed the program in favour of alternatives such as research, education, and personal and area-based shark deterrents.
The Town argued that the WASG installed drum lines 'without proper planning, with no evidence of its efficacy, no provision for data collection and inaccurate recording and projection of data from the recent trial'. In addition, it was stated that the Council believed it was acting within the interest of the majority of Cottesloe residents and taxpayers in expressing its opposition to the policy to the EPA. This document is significant to the research because it clearly demonstrates this local governments opposition to the continuation of drum lining following the initial SHMDLP of 2013-2014. Furthermore, it points to environmental impacts and bather safety being the leading concerns of this Council.
July 2014
In July 2014, the CSIRO presented their Peer Review Report (PRR) on the WA SHMDLP 2014- 2017 to the WA EPA. The report considered the information provided in the DPC’s PER and
Chapter 5: Results 129 was compiled to provide advice to the EPA regarding the findings, conclusions and proposed management of the program by the DPC.
Firstly, the CSIRO found that the DPC had poorly addressed the requirement under the ESD to ‘establish clear measurable objectives and performance measures, including trigger points and corresponding management actions’. It was argued that there was a failure to establish measurable objectives that would allow for the determination of whether success had been achieved by the program and that this posed a risk to the environment. The DPC had failed to establish clear ‘maximum levels of catch’ for each species and the actions that would be taken if these levels were reached or exceeded. It was stated that an open-ended no limit catch of any target species, but particularly the white shark, would be a ‘demonstrably poor management arrangement for the program and could not be considered as being environmentally sensitive’. The CSIRO argue that the development of a Management Advisory Committee responsible for overseeing the management and reporting of the program would greatly improve the management of the program. Furthermore, the CSIRO argued that the DPC has suggested that the drum lines be implemented until alternative shark hazard mitigation measures are developed and that this suggests that the program will not continue to operate based on its ‘success’ rather, that it will operate until a more desirable alternative exists. Therefore, the success of the program is not considered by the DPC when considering how long it will continue to operate for.
Furthermore, the PRR found that the DPC had not included an ‘examination of the degree to which the use of drum lines would reduce risks associated with human-shark interactions’ in their assessment. It was argued that, while such an assessment is not a requirement under the ESD, it would help to determine the success of the program, given that reducing human-shark interactions appeared to the be implicit goal of the program. It was argued that, although it was possible that the impact of the drum lines on the environment could be measured in future, the unclear objectives surrounding improving public safety make it much harder to measure the ‘success’ of the program.
The CSIRO highlighted the fact that because the program captured a much higher number of tiger sharks than anticipated during the 2013-2014 trial, that it was likely that these sharks existed in larger numbers around popular swimming beaches than previously believed. Given this species’ ability to cause serious injury and death to humans and the chance of encounter
Chapter 5: Results 130 being likely much higher than previously believed, the CSIRO argued that it was not adequate for correlations to be drawn between the number of sharks and likelihood of attack. It was also found that ‘shark sightings’ alone could therefore not be found to constitute the ‘imminent threat’ required of the Rapid Response drum line deployment component of the program. This is relevant to the research because it means that the exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) based on ‘imminent threat’ may not have been valid. It is also consistent with 2012 DF claims that risk of shark attack is random and impossible to calculate. It was argued that the definition of ‘imminent threat’ needs to be clarified further as there was contradictory information provided by the DPC where Appendix 3: Guidelines for fishing for sharks posing an imminent threat to public safety suggested that the sighting of a large shark, alone, may not constitute imminent threat but that imminent threat appeared to be identified through sightings alone during the 2013- 2014 trial (2014, 10).
The CSIRO suggested that the risk posed to bathers is likely to be complex, time-variant, spatially variant and non-linear, meaning that removing a shark, simply because it has the potential to cause significant human injury, may not have any impact on enhancing public safety. The way that shark hazard mitigation techniques work is by causing localized depletion, widespread population depletion, or continuing interception of sharks from entering a popular swimming area. It was argued that the level of local or widespread population depletion required to increase bather safety to an ‘acceptable level’ was very difficult to identify and that the DPC had not done this but that It was a ‘zero risk of shark attack’ was found to be unattainable without local extinction. The CSIRO further argued that using such localized fishing techniques for large predatory sharks are of limited use considering the highly migratory nature of white sharks, the species responsible for most bite incidents. It was also argued that, simply because the trial WA SHMDLP 2013-14 failed to capture any white sharks, there was insufficient data to form the conclusion that the program, if implemented in 2014-2017 would also not pose a risk to the species.
The CSIRO referred to the perceived success of QLD and NSW programs, suggesting that the success of these programs is often over-estimated and impossible to assess, as it is not possible to know how many attacks would have occurred if gill nets and drum lines had not been deployed off the east-coast. It also compares the rapid response component of the WA SHMDLP 2013 –
Chapter 5: Results 131 2014 to Hawaiian culling initiatives that were found to be unsuccessful due to their inability to effectively capture highly mobile and migratory sharks following an incident.
Secondly, the CSIRO identified issues with the operational details of the draft management plan for the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017. They found that the data collected during the 2013-2014 trial of the WA SHMDLP was not sufficient to adequately monitor or assess the program. It was argued that a failure to collect adequate data would limit the DPC’s ability to conduct robust assessments of populations and impacts of the program on local populations, particularly the white shark. CSIRO suggested that the minimum data collection requirements would include: number of drum lines active each day, their locations and catch, frequency of checking drum lines, type of bait, catch depredation, bait loss, species/length/size of captured animals, activity/viability level of each specimen and reporting capture of tagged sharks.
The CSIRO suggested that failure to collect biological samples for scientific research would not comply with best practice and would compromise any future assessments of the program. It was argued that biological sampling would allow for improved monitoring of demographic parameters and populations, particularly of white sharks. Furthermore, it was stated that the DPC had acknowledged the potential for post-release mortality rates to be high and that more research was required to assess the impacts of this. It was suggested that further research would assist in determining whether high post-release mortality rates were attracting more sharks to the vicinity of drum lines. The CSIRO also argued that detection of tagged sharks should not trigger the rapid response component of the program as this allowed for a non-lethal alternative to hazard mitigation. The CSIRO found that the DPC’s conclusion of negligible risk to white sharks, which was based off determinations made by DF staff in the previously operating MMAs and similar programs in other jurisdictions, were flawed because they failed to consider that Rapid Response drum lines could be set outside of the MMAs and potentially, in the vicinity of areas where white sharks are known to aggregate (finfish schools, whale carcasses). They argued that these areas should be exempt from the Rapid Response component of the program.
The CSIRO found that the claim that hook sized used in the program should ‘reduce bycatch’ is not supported by appropriate evidence. The CSIRO argues that the hook sized has been proven to be ‘reasonably effective at taking non-target sized sharks’ and that it likely that the use of such a
Chapter 5: Results 132 large hook may result in more extensive injuries to these animals. It was noted it may be less environmentally harmful to consider using smaller hooks, and in turn, increasing bycatch levels if that would decrease the post-release mortality rates.
During the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014, the DPC conducted research into white shark population numbers in WA and found that white shark population estimates had increased in recent years. The CSIRO examined the evidence used to inform this research, which was compiled from Abalone diver observations, Neptune Island sightings, WA shark attack data, other white shark population estimates and comparative dusky shark population estimates. It was found that abalone diver sighting reports were not reliable data to form conclusions about population estimates and that statements from abalone divers about population growth were from a ‘perceived increase’ in numbers, rather than from an increase in actual sightings. It was found that the DPC’s conclusions about the increase in sighting frequency in the Neptune Islands suggesting potential population growth, sighted in a report that was conducted by Barry Bruce (the main CSIRO member conducting the PER) could not be supported. It was found that the EPA’s assessment of shark attack data was based on a misinterpretation of ABS statistics, which were represented as a decrease on recreational ocean use in WA, rather than a ‘significant increase’, as the ABS report stated. Therefore, conclusions that the observed trends in shark attacks, relative to WA population growth, suggest that it ‘would be most consistent with some level of increase (in white shark population estimates)’ cannot be supported. Finally, the CSIRO found that the comparisons to other white shark population data and dusky shark population data give no measure of support to claims that WA white shark populations are increasing.
The conclusion made by the CSIRO regarding the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017 were that there was little support for the DPC’s claim that there was a ‘high level of consistency in the patterns seen among independent lines of evidence’. It was found that the ‘weight-of-evidence’ based research approach taken by the DPC was open to significant bias and that not all available evidence or alternative interpretations of data had been considered, meaning that that the DPC’s ESD lacked credibility. It was found that Appendix 9 in the ESD, while acknowledged by the DPC as a working draft, appears to guide the conclusions made in the risk assessment of the program and that this document contains ‘selective use of information’ and cites non peer-reviewed reports that would ‘fail the test of good science and scientific reporting’. Overall, this document is
Chapter 5: Results 133 important for the research because it demonstrates significant evidence that the WA SHMDLP was not supported by science, either in the DPC’s claim that it would have negligible environmental impacts or in its claim that it would enhance bather safety.
July 2014
In July 2014, the DPC released their Response to Submissions on the Public Environmental Review document on the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017. This document contained detailed responses to public submissions, the DPW, the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and the PRR published by the CSIRO. The DPC stated that the submissions made in the PER had not resulted in any changes to the key characteristics of the proposal. However, additional information on possible gear selectivity, acceptable catch levels, trigger points, contingency measures, animal handling protocols, contractor training and research opportunities had been incorporated. The DPC argued that the WASG was confident that the program proposal will not result in unacceptable or unsustainable impacts on marine fauna.
In response to the first argument made by the CSIRO, regarding a lack of measurable objectives, the DPC states that, while it has not been possible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 14 week trial, ‘strong confidence’ has been placed in similar drum line programs in QLD and Kwa-Zulu Natal. The DPC refers to the CSIRO’s comment that removing large sharks of particular species ‘no doubt reduces the risk of such an incident occurring’ and argues that this is the primary objective of the program. However, they reiterate that non-lethal hazard mitigation technologies have also been funded to compliment or act as an alternative to the operation of the program in 2014-2017. Furthermore, the DPC challenges the validity of conclusions made in the PRR on the basis that the CSIRO has referred to the program as potentially extending beyond the three-year period and therefore, some of the findings regarding potential environmental impacts may not be specific to a the three-year operations of the program, which could impact the relevance of advice made to the EPA by the CSIRO.
The DPC stated that the anticipated and acceptable catch levels for both target and non-target species would be clearly identified in the program’s Management Plan. They stated that unanticipated capture of listed marine species will likely call for a within-season review.
Chapter 5: Results 134 Furthermore, they stated that anticipated catch levels are based off the 25/0 hook size and that, if the DPC were to adapt the hook size, as suggested by the CSIRO, the anticipated catch rates may increase. It was noted that anticipated and acceptable catch rates include all animals captured, including those released alive. The trigger points (acceptable number of animals to have been destroyed or died) for species that are anticipated to be captured during the three years were:
• White shark: 20 • Tiger shark: 350 • Bull shark: 10 • Dusky shark: 30 • Grey nurse shark: 5 • Shortfin mako shark: 50 • Non-listed other elasmobranchs (cumulative of species): 50 • Other listed marine species (including seals, sea lions, whales, elasmobranchs, dolphins, turtles and seabirds): 3 The DPC provided a list of potential contingency measures that would be implemented if any of these trigger points were met.
In the DPC’s response to the CSIRO’s recommendation of establishing a Management Advisory Committee, they suggested that this is not considered to be appropriate or necessary, given the ‘extensive and transparent compliance and regulatory framework of the program’. It is argued that this is not a requirement of the shark control programs in QLD, NSW, South Africa or Recife and that operation of the WA program is significantly more conservative than these programs. The DPC reiterated that the primary objective of the program was to enhance bather safety and state that they would be providing monthly catch-data and that regular meetings between the DPW, DF and DPC would take place as part of a comprehensive management plan endorsed by the EPA.
The DPC agreed with the CSIRO’s recommendation that more data be collected during the operation of the WA SHMDLP and outlined the additional data that would be collected in the 2014-2017 operations of the program. They stated that collaborations with research institutions are underway regarding the logistical issues surrounding biological sampling (eg. collecting,
Chapter 5: Results 135 transporting and storing caracasses/samples). It was noted that the QLD and NSW programs are only required to take white shark samples where ‘feasible and practical’, highlighting the complexities around these processes. Furthermore, in response to the CSIRO’s recommendation for further investigations into post-release survival rates, the DPC stated that during the 2014- 2017 operations of the program, efforts would be made to tag sharks for this purpose, provided the shark was considered in acceptable condition for this to occur. The DCP also stated that, in the absence of empirical data surrounding post-release survival rates, the precautionary principle had been applied to allow for post-release mortality to be as high as 100%, although this is not anticipated to be accurate, meaning that overall impacts of the program should be lower than predicted. The DPC also agreed with the recommendation in the PRR for collaboration with the DF surrounding white shark mortalities and stated that the DF was collaborating with recreational and commercial fisheries on a project that will reconstruct the history of white shark mortalities.
The DPC claimed that the CSIRO is inaccurate in their supposition that tagged sharks would automatically initiate the rapid-response component of the program. They stated that the DF’s imminent threat policy operates in all WA waters except the MMAs during the operation of the WA SHMDLP and that there were specific guidelines to determining whether a shark poses a high risk to bathers. They also stated SLSWA was also notified of the detection of tagged sharks near popular swimming beaches and that this provided them with the alternative hazard mitigation technique of closing the beach. They also suggested that the guidelines, referred to above, by the DF, show consideration of white shark aggregations that are the result of whale carcasses or finfish school and provide alternative hazard mitigation techniques to the deployment of temporary drum lines. However, it is noted that the primary concern of the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 is to enhance bather safety during peak ocean-use periods.
With regards to hook size, the DPC stated that the decision to use larger hooks than in other, similar programs was considered to be a significant factor in reducing bycatch of non-target and target species. They argue that hook size was a ‘compromise’ between recognizing that, although total bycatch was reduced, post-release mortality rates were likely to be higher. However, the DPC considered a gear selectivity trial to investigate the effectiveness of ‘J’ hooks compared to circle hooks.
Chapter 5: Results 136 As discussed previously, the key criticisms of the risk assessment by the CSIRO were that the DPC’s conclusions were based on assumptions that white shark populations were increasing, which was not supported by empirical evidence and that the significantly higher than anticipated catch rates of tiger sharks suggested that further consideration of an upper catch-limit was needed to reduce the adverse population and ecosystem level risks. Firstly, the DPC disputed that their risk assessment for this species was based on increasing population levels and argued that it was in fact based on conservative population estimates that the population was stable, according to all lines of evidence. They argued that all population estimates suggested that the species would not be highly impacted by anticipated catch rates from the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 and that their risk assessment assumes worst-case scenario. They further suggested that the PRR includes information that an increase in white shark population is plausible. Secondly, the DPC agreed that high levels of tiger-shark mortalities from the program could raise the risk to this species from negligible to minor and that a relatively small decrease in total abundance could occur.
With regards to the PRR’s criticisms of the DPC’s use of abalone diver observations, the DPC reaffirmed their stance that this data, while acknowledged to be potentially imprecise, was not necessarily inaccurate. They stated that the CSIRO’s concerns about low sighting rates were at odds with their concern about repeat sightings and argue that repeat sightings were not the case in this data set. They concluded that this data set suggests that white shark populations were unlikely to be significantly decreasing during the past decade without abalone diver observations reflecting this. Therefore, the DPC argued that this data was valid and did support the argument that white shark populations were at least stable. Furthermore, the DPC supported their conclusions drawn from the Bruce and Bradford (2013) (Bruce being the leading author of the PRR) study that findings were ‘fully consistent’ with either no change or a slight increase. The CSIRO argued that that was not a correct interpretation of the data and that no such findings were made during the study. However, the DPC disputed this, saying that it was difficult, not impossible, to draw conclusions from this study and that the study had not found evidence of a decline in numbers, meaning that a decline would have a ‘much lower level of plausibility’ than stable or increasing populations.
Finally, with regards to the CSIRO’s criticism of the DPC’s interpretation of WA Shark Attack
Chapter 5: Results 137 Data and ABS data, the DPC supported their argument that an increase in attacks could not be wholly explained by WA population growth. The CSIRO suggested that ABS warnings about relative standard error within the statistics had been ignored by the DPC and that it was likely that the overall ocean use had increased since 1996, rather than decreased as suggested by the DPC. The DPC reiterated that they had argued that it was only ‘plausible’ and most consistent with the patterns suggesting white shark population growth or stability, rather than decline, that the increase in shark bite incidents was a result of white shark population growth. They also argued that WA population growth alone did not explain increasing attack rates.
In response to the overall conclusion made in the PRR by the CSIRO, the DPC stated that conclusions about the ‘little support’ for arguments relating to white shark population estimates were ‘demonstrably incorrect’. The DPC argued that the CSIRO had rejected all conclusions made about white shark population estimates because each data set had uncertainties and imprecision. However, the DPC stated that it is unlikely that perfect data sets surrounding white sharks would be available and that this was an inappropriate position to adopt in the context of a risk assessment. The DPC concluded that they had acknowledged elements of uncertainty in each data set but that the data still had value in determining overall population trends and that these all appeared to suggest population stability or slight increase. They refuted the assertation that data had been selectively used and argued that it would have been inappropriate to have excluded any information on the basis that it was unpublished or not peer-reviewed.
August 2014
In August 2014, the CSIRO published the Peer Review Close Out Report, in which they responded to the DPC’s responses to their initial PRR. Overall, they noted that the DPC is at odds with achieving their duty of care and moral objectives of enhancing bather safety and their environmental objective of ensuring the viability of marine ecosystems. The agreed that some initial concerns had been clarified but that there are remaining concerns that have not been adequately addressed.
Firstly, the CSIRO stated that the DPC appeared to consider the removal of any large tiger, bull or white shark, as a measure of success at achieving the bather safety related program objective.
Chapter 5: Results 138 However, they argued that in order to meet the environmental objectives, measurable objectives about levels of enhanced bather safety needed to be further clarified. They confirmed that the initial PRR assessed the risks associated with the three-year operational period of the program, only, dismissing the DPC’s concerns that initial assessments of the DPC’s risk assessment may have been invalid if they assumed a long-term ongoing program. However, they stated that, if the DPC did intend to continue the operations of the program following 2017, in the event that alternative measures had not been developed, the DPC had an obligation to clearly state this. This was because evidence in other areas (QLD, NSW) has suggested that it could be hard to cease operations of shark control programs without robust data and scientific advice or social acceptance.
The CSIRO noted that the identification of trigger points was a vast improvement to the program. However, they noted that, in the absence of more post-release mortality rate research, trigger points should be determined bycatch rates, rather than presumed mortality rates, even if assumed mortality rates were near 100%. They stated that the program’s research component, regarding biological sampling, had been significantly improved, however, argued that biological sampling should have been extended to tiger sharks, in addition to white sharks, given that they catch rates were so high in the 2013-2014 trial.
With regards to the gear selectivity trial discussed by the DPC, the CSIRO found it inadequate to only sample J versus circle hooks of the 25/0 size. They argued that standard-sized hooks should be trialed for cost-effectiveness and reducing the injuries caused from capture. They suggested using standardized hooks would allow for appropriate research to test whether the large hook size was successful in reducing bycatch, as was currently argued by the DPC. Using smaller (and cheaper) hooks would also allow for lines to be cut and hooks left in place in an animal, which was recognized as best and standard practice for releasing bycatch in commercial and recreational fisheries.
The CSIRO reiterated their concerns with the uncertainties in some data used to estimate white shark population health. The stated that they do not agree with the DPC in several conclusions drawn from research that used data that was imprecise of uncertain. Specifically, they referred to two studies by the CSIRO and CSIRO staff, that the DPC had used to support conclusions about
Chapter 5: Results 139 population health and argued that both studies had not found conclusive evidence of population growth or stability.
5 September 2014
In September 2014, Tourism WA released their Annual Report for the 2013-2014 period. This is crucial to the research because it covers the entire operation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, including the development of the program and the DPC’s application for exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) on the grounds that the impact of shark bite incidents in WA was a matter of national interest. It also relates to the argument that drum lining itself was likely to negatively impact state tourism.
This report found that the percentage of visitors whose expectations were met or exceeded upon visiting WA exceeded the target rate of 90% with a total of 97.8% of tourists reporting that this occurred. It was also found that the target goal of 1,889,000 inbound interstate and international tourists was exceeded, with a total of 2,018,500 people visiting the state during this period. However, it was noted that the goal of 13.1% for the State’s share of international visitors to Australia was not met by 0.1%. As with the previous Tourism WA Annual Report, these findings are not specific to coastal tourism, however, it does suggest that overall, the State’s tourism industry did not suffer either as a result of increased shark bite frequency or the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
11 September 2014
The EPA’s recommendations and advice to the Minister for Environment regarding the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017 were published in a report on 11 September 2014. In developing these recommendations, the EPA considered the precautionary principle, the principle of intergenerational equity and the principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. Overall, it was decided that, despite the ‘best efforts’ of the DPC to make conservative and plausible estimates in their risk assessment of the program, the EPA recommended against the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017. This was because there remained a ‘high degree of scientific uncertainty as to whether the proposal (could) meet
Chapter 5: Results 140 the EPA’s environmental objective for Marine Fauna and there (was) a risk that, if the proposal (was) implemented, it may compromise the viability of white sharks at the population level’. In the event that the proposal proceeded, the EPA recommended that the DPC should be required to have an environmental management plan in place and set catch limits for target sharks.
28 October 2014
In October 2014, the Town of Cottesloe Mayor sent a letter to an unknown person from the WASG requesting funding for a trial Eco Shark Barrier, similar to the one trialed at Coogee Beach. It was stated that the Council resolution to install a shark barrier was passed unanimously. This is evidence of the favorability of this shark hazard mitigation technique, which was proven to enhance bather safety with negligible environmental impacts.
14 November 2014
The Infrastructure Services Manager for the City of Cockburn informed two colleagues via email on 14 November 2014 that the WASG would not provide funding for the ongoing use of beach closures at Coogee Beach. It was stated that the WASG had been approached about funding for beach enclosures by several LGs and had refused all except the $200K for the Busselton enclosure. It was stated that the WASG was ‘very definite’ about their position not to provide funding for local beach enclosures and that this was unlikely to change. It is interesting to note that the WASG decided not to support effective shark hazard mitigation techniques that were supported by LGs and the public and posed little to no threat to the marine environment.
26 November 2014
The Council meeting minutes from 26 November 2014 can be used to aid in developing an understanding of the City of Busselton’s position towards shark hazard mitigation. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss shark hazard response procedure with the strategic objective of creating ‘a community where people feel safe, empowered, included and enjoy a sense of good health and wellbeing’. This is interesting to the research because it does not suggest clear consideration of potential environmental impacts associated with hazard mitigation. However, it was established that the City would continue to support WASG engagement with shark hazard
Chapter 5: Results 141 mitigation, which may suggest that the City of Busselton supported the WA SHMDLP (both in 2013 – 2014 and the proposed 2014 – 2017).
It was stated that, although a ‘state-wide process for reporting shark sightings has been established through the WA Water Police, the responsibility for on ground response to these sightings has been informally devolved to the land manager nearest to the location where each shark is sighted’. It was stated that ‘this inferred responsibility on regional coastal land managers for responding to shark sightings, many of which are LGs, has prompted some consternation’.
This was due to the complexities associated with shark hazard mitigation in terms of jurisdictional boundaries, lack of information to make informed decisions to alert the community, unpredictability of sharks, lack of resources to provide permanent beach surveillance over large expanses of coastline, limited SLSWA patrolled beaches and safe swimming enclosures.
In this document, the City acknowledged that an ‘increase in shark attacks and shark sightings along the West Australian coast over recent years has heightened community concern about shark hazard’. While no evidence is provided to support this claim, it is important to the research because it demonstrates this LG’s perception of continued community concern following the cessation of drum lining in WA.
The City of Busselton acknowledged the role of the WASG in funding the shark barrier installation at Dunsborough beach and stated that it was ‘envisaged’ that the state would provide similar funding for the installation of more barriers within the City’s jurisdiction. This is relevant to the research because it highlights the City’s inclination towards an alternative method of shark hazard mitigation and their consideration of associated costs in dealing with shark hazard mitigation. Furthermore, the ‘limited science to inform decisions on responding to shark sightings’ was identified by the City as a key issue in mitigating hazards posed by sharks due to their transient and unpredictable nature. This is important because it demonstrates this LG’s awareness of a lack of scientific evidence surrounding this issue, which was a key criticism of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.The City’s precautionary approach of erecting signage from both accurate shark sighting reports from the DF and SLSWA, as well as unverified reports from
Chapter 5: Results 142 members of the public was seen as potentially problematic because ‘this approach may be contributing to further community anxiety about sharks and is not considered an effective use of resources, particularly in the circumstance where the location of the shark is unknown’. It was argued that better community awareness of the ‘shared responsibility’ of risk was needed. The City recommended enhancing community education and awareness through ‘permanent signage at key beach access paths displaying details on how to access the most recent and local shark activity information through the DF Shark Smart website, SLSWA twitter feed and smart phone Beachsafe application’. It was hoped that this pre-emptive approach of providing the public with up-to-date information be more effective than the previous approach of responding to shark sightings after the event.
Other measures listed as potential future alternatives included: sonar warning systems, autonomous vehicles (such as self‐driving cars and drone aircraft), auditory or electro‐magnetic repellent systems, remotely operated, active signage and even ‘some suggestion of training dolphins to protect certain beach areas’. However, it was noted that all of these are potentially useful areas of research, but they are well beyond the technical or financial capacity of a LG.
Overall, this document is relevant to the research for several reasons. Firstly, it shows the City’s consideration of inadequate science to inform shark hazard mitigation policy, which was a key criticism relating the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Secondly, it outlines the issues faced by local WA governments regarding shark hazard mitigation and is useful in determining the position of the City of Busselton toward hazard mitigation and the roles played by many different government agencies in addressing this issue. Furthermore, it reveals that there was a perception of heightened community concern surrounding shark hazards. Finally, this document reveals consideration of numerous shark hazard mitigation strategies, none of which result in the deliberate destruction of dangerous sharks, suggesting that by November 2014, this may not have been considered a desirable approach to shark hazard mitigation.
1 December 2014
In December 2014, the WASG informed the Mayor of the Town of Cottesloe via letter that their application for funding for a Shark Barrier was 'not supported...... at this time' despite
Chapter 5: Results 143 hydrobiology consultants finding the location to be favourable in the summer months. It was stated that this rejection was due to the substantial portion of the budget already directing towards shark hazard mitigation in Cottesloe and the potential for a barrier at this location to cause stakeholder conflict with the Cottesloe Surf Life Saving Club.
21 June 2016
On 21 June 2016 the Manager from the Shark Response Unit of the DF contacted the Chief Executive Officer from the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River regarding shark hazard mitigation techniques, particularly signage. The letter referred to a 2013 survey that measured community perceptions towards sharks and found that 'people wanted to be better informed about shark behaviour and the movements of sharks off the Western Australian coast'. The development of the SharkSmart website was reportedly developed in response to the findings of this survey. This is interesting for the research because this survey has not been located through the research or mentioned in any of the other documents collected from the DF of Shire (see Appendix 1).
21 June 2016
The City of Joondalup received the same information from the Shark Response Unit as the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River regarding shark hazard mitigation strategies in response to the public’s increasing concern about shark hazards. These documents are important for the research because the Shark Response Unit has rarely been referred to throughout this research, while this document clearly demonstrates they were concerned with measuring public perceptions about shark hazards.
22 June 2016
The City of Joondalup was informed by Shark Mitigations Systems, on the 22 June 2016, that the they had recently had a promising meeting with the WASG regarding the implementation of Clever Buoy technology. This is a technology that aims to detect sharks in the area of popular swimming beaches and indicates the government’s shift away from lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques following the cessation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Chapter 5: Results 144 17 May 2017
A document received from the City of Joondalup provided a series of questions and answers regarding eco shark barriers as an effective shark hazard mitigation technique at Sorrento Beach in Joondalup. It was argued that ‘anecdotal evidence from observations by the Sorrento Surf Club’ indicate increased patronage from sporting groups and individuals using the area for (swimming) training’ and that local businesses had anecdotally reported increases in business since the implementation of a barrier. This might be indicative of a real level of public concern regarding shark bite incidents.
19 May 2017
On 19 May, 2017, the Geraldton Guardian released an article about the City of Greater Geraldton’s application to the WASG for a shark exclusion net. In an interview with the City Mayor, it was revealed that the WASG had reneged on their promise to invest funding into a shark barrier at Medalias Beach. The Mayor described the barrier as a ‘nice, easy, comfortable fit at minimal cost’, suggesting that financial cost was a primary consideration of this LG in considering shark hazard mitigation techniques. As mentioned previously, this technique also has significantly less impact on the environment than alternatives such as drum lining and gill nets.
09 July 2017
On 9 July 2017, the Greater City of Geraldton released a public announcement about shark advice following the sighting of a whale carcass off the coastline. In this document, the City stated that “Water users should take additional caution, adhere to beach closures advised by local government Rangers or Surf Life Saving WA and keep informed of the latest detection and sighting information by checking the SharkSmart website or Surf Life Saving WA’s Twitter feed’. This is relevant to the research because it, again, demonstrates this LG’s approach of placing responsibility on individual beach users. This is also relevant because a second shark bite incident occurred in this area in 2013, meaning that this area has been subject to multiple shark bite incidents.
Chapter 5: Results 145 Conclusion
Throughout this narrative, documents retrieved from the City of Cockburn, City of Busselton, City of Greater Geraldton, City of Rockingham, Town of Cottesloe, Shire of Exmouth, Rottnest Island Authority, DBCA, DF, DPC, DE and CSIRO were summarised. This was done with the aim of aiding in developing an understanding of the positions of key stakeholders, including local, state and federal governments and the scientific community, surrounding perceptions of shark related hazards in WA and approaches to mitigating risks associated with this. By developing this narrative and considering how these documents relate to the research, particularly to the TCMA, the researcher has identified some key points.
Firstly, large hooks have regularly been cited by the DPC as a means to reduce bycatch. No evidence has been found to support this but it is claimed by the DPC that this has been determined through previous discussions between the DPC and DE. However, this method is criticised by the Greens, Sea Shepherd, HSI and CSIRO as not being supported by evidence. Furthermore, the CSIRO argue that increased hook size can cause more severe injuries to non- target animals than smaller hooks and may therefore have resulted in increased environmental harms through higher post-release mortality rates. Whilst it is not known what would have happened if smaller hooks had been used, the incident described by Sea Shepherd, in which a hook is ‘barbarically hacked’ away from a shark’s head could support this. Despite this, ‘large hook size’ is listed as a key reason that the DE granted the DPC an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) because the DPC was found to be taking precautions to reduce bycatch. Furthermore, following the 2013-2014 trial of the program, the DPC recommended the continued use of large hooks in the 2014-2017 proposal without providing any evidence to support this, after it was demonstrated that these hooks were still effective at catching smaller specimens.
Secondly, the discussions around drum lining having the potential to lure sharks into the vicinity of popular beaches were deemed relevant to the research. The DPC aimed to use drum lines to enhance bather safety, although no evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy has been found through this research and the program is regularly criticized for this lack of evidence throughout the documents analysed above. Furthermore, the CSIRO criticised the practice in stating that the DPC did not provide any guidelines with which to measure the program’s success. This is
Chapter 5: Results 146 important because the demonstration of the effectiveness of drum lines was specifically listed as a requirement of the DPC by the DE in granting an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth).
In addition, drum lines were criticised by the Greens, Sea Shepherd, WA Labor Party, Town of Cottesloe and CSIRO for having the potential to lure sharks closer to beaches. It was found that the DF had previously stated that sharks needed to be baited to be seen off WA beaches which was contradictory to the position of the DPC, which implemented baited drum lines to enhance bather safety. Sea Shepherd argued that sharks were being baited by the drum lines themselves as well as by the vomited stomach contents of sharks that had become distressed on drum lines. While the DPC did not comment on shark vomit, they claimed that shark guts were cut open to aid in decomposition, which supported the claim that the practice of drum lining (or cutting open sharks caught on drum lines) may lure sharks closer to beaches.
Furthermore, Sea Shepherd claimed that sharks hooked on drum lines had been found to be predated on by larger sharks, suggesting that sharks caught on drum lines could also act as bait for larger sharks. However, the DPC argued that this was not a frequent enough occurrence for general conclusions to be made. In addition, the CSIRO argued that the practice of drum lining also had the potential to lure sharks into the vicinity because the post-release mortality rate had not been researched and there was the potential for large numbers of dead sharks to be floating around near popular beaches, acting as bait for more sharks. And finally, the Premier himself stated in a Parliamentary session that the drum lines off Rottnest Island had been removed for the Rottnest Channel Swim because it would be ‘irresponsible’ for the government to leave baited hooks in the path of swimmers because fish (in this case: sharks) swim toward bait. Overall, this demonstrates that there were several arguments about the effectiveness of drum lining at enhancing bather safety, from several key stakeholders and that there was no evidence provided to support the claim that it reduced the risk of shark bite incidents.
Thirdly, this summary narrative has revealed contradictory arguments on behalf of the WASG in regards to the timing of the deployment of drum lines off WA. Throughout this analysis, it is regularly suggested that white sharks are the primary focus of the program, through the application for the exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) to catch them and through acknowledgement of statistics that white sharks are the species responsible for most (if not all)
Chapter 5: Results 147 fatalities in either MMA. Therefore, the presence of white sharks in the areas targeted by the program was argued to constitute an ‘imminent risk’ to the public, where it was in the ‘national interest’ to pre-emptively catch and kill individuals of this species. However, correspondence documents from the DE revealed that the DE considered the likelihood of the program catching any white sharks to be low because of the migratory nature of this species meaning that they tend to prefer cooler waters and less frequently visit the MMAs during the summer months. It was also acknowledged that only one of 27 fatalities had occurred during the period of year when the DPC planned to implement drum lining, meaning that was statistically the safest time of year.
Therefore, the program that aimed to enhance bather safety by pre-emptively catching the species responsible for all fatalities in which a species was positively identified, operated at the time of year where the chance of a bite incident from this species occurring was statistically lowest and the DE acknowledged this in granting an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) as a reason the program was anticipated to have minimal impact on this species. This means that the WASG sought to introduce a program designed to enhance bather safety at a period of year when bather safety (from shark bite incident) was statistically highest.
Additionally, this narrative revealed frequent consideration of the reputation of WA beaches with international tourists. This was revealed in the City of Busselton’s assumption that the drum lines would be deployed prior to the influx in tourists, and the DE’s and DPC’s consideration of tourism statistics and reasons for visiting WA. This is interesting because, when considering the previous argument about the program being implemented at the safest time of year, it suggests that statistically enhancing bather safety may not have been the primary motivation behind the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Rather, this may suggest that potential loss of revenue from the tourism industry may have been the motivating factor for the decision to implement drum lines in WA. This is also supported by ongoing discussions throughout the narrative that reveals all local, state and federal governments were aware of the potential public opposition to the policy, meaning that the WASG may have been more concerned with the perceptions of international tourists, than WA residents. It was also found that, despite these concerns, tourism in WA for both the year prior to the announcement of the policy (2012 – 2013) and the year of the WA SHMDLP (2013 – 2014) exceeded target goals for both visitor satisfaction and numbers.
Chapter 5: Results 148 Another key trend noted regularly throughout this narrative was the consideration of shark hazard mitigation measures increasing public anxiety about shark threats. This was demonstrated by several of the notes received from the DPC and from the discussion paper from the City of Bunbury. Furthermore, responsibility for public safety was raised several times in this narrative with the DE, DPC, City of Cockburn and City of Greater Geraldton all arguing that the public was ultimately responsible for their own safety. However, the MRBRC and City of Bunbury argued that the government had a duty of care to protect the public from imminent threats posed by sharks. Finally, it was noted that all of the concern from the public and LGs was specific to white shark bites. Discussions about risk, water temperatures and whale migrations from the DF, DPC and DE were all relevant to white sharks, rather than tiger sharks or bull sharks. Therefore, it is interesting to consider why the DPC also decided to target tiger and bull sharks in the program given that there was no specific concern expressed about these species by stakeholders who did support the policy and that the policy received such heavy opposition generally.
Another trend occurring throughout this summary narrative is the WASG’s awareness and consideration of media focus on the topic. There were ongoing comments about the media's focus on the issue and the government’s approach to dealing with this. On several occasions the WASG provided clear instructions that information was to be kept out of the media. This is important for the research because, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the news media play a significant role in the construction of social problems through bringing topics to the public's attention.
This summary narrative has revealed that most LGs appeared to be primarily concerned with environmental impacts resulting from shark hazard mitigation techniques and public opinion. It appears that the WASG and DE were more concerned with potential economic losses from a reduction in tourists visiting WA than with the public, scientific community and environmental groups’ opposition to the policy. The development of the program appeared to be rushed, and there was little to no evidence support any of the claims made by the DPC that it was an environmentally minded policy that would enhance bather safety.
Overall, this narrative has provided a timeline of events to track changing perceptions and attitudes towards both social problems that this research aims to examine. The documents
Chapter 5: Results 149 discussed in this chapter will be used to determine how increasing shark bite frequency in WA was constructed as a social problem and how the response to this social problem that led to drum lining as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was also constructed as a second social problem. This chapter will inform the discussion in Chapter 6 by providing information concerning how the claims were made, who acted as key claims-makers and what claims-making processes were used in the construction of these social problems.
5.3 PART 2 – PUBLIC OPINION
EPA Public submissions
In 2014 the WA EPA held a 10-day public submission period in which the public was able to comment on whether the EPA should conduct an assessment of the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 proposal. While it is recognized that these submissions should relate exclusively to the 2014 – 2017 continuation of the program, it was clear from reading the content of the submissions that many of the arguments were based on the perceptions that the public had of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. Therefore, the following section will refer to the WA SHMDLP as a whole, rather than considering the 2013 – 2014 trial or 2014 – 2017 proposal as separate issues. This is because this will not impact the findings of the data because the condition being constructed as a social problem is the pre-emptive killing of large sharks in WA, which both the trial and proposal aimed to do.
Opposition
In this section, each of the nodes will be discussed in more detail. As is evident from the graph below (Figure 2) and was anticipated, the most commonly occurring arguments found within this dataset relate to the environment, particularly concern for the overall ecosystem that was likely to be impacted by drum lining off the WA coastline. However, it is also evident that many of the other leading arguments featured in the data are not primarily concerned with the environment.
Chapter 5: Results 150 Figure 2 – Themes of Opposition
Due to the large size of this sample of data, only the reoccurring themes that appear more than 100 times will be discussed in detail as the remainder are not representative of significant public sentiment. Furthermore, it is noted that a significant portion of the data consists of pro forma submissions. Where possible, these were traced to their origin to determine which agencies have been responsible for influencing public opinion, as this is necessary for further discussion using the TCMAs. While the pro forma submissions may influence the findings because they are not necessarily as true a measure of public opinion than individually written submissions, there are still valuable in analysing overarching themes.
It is difficult to measure the exact number of proforma submissions because they are frequently modified or combined meaning that exact match results from text searches are inaccurate. However, there were approximately 20 different pro forma submissions identified ranging from only a couple to 628 submissions. Only seven different pro forma submissions were deemed statistically significant to the research, meaning that they were submitted more than 100 times. The pro forma submissions also influence the outcome of the findings because they are all limited to the same seven of the fourteen nodes used for coding. This could potentially mean that more weight should be given to arguments that are not addressed by pro forma submissions.
Chapter 5: Results 151 The leading pro forma submission that appeared 628 times in the data stated:
‘Sharks that maintain humanities life support systems are in big trouble globally and what exists off the WA coast is rare and unique and is of global significance and importance and must be protected.’
This was coded at the ‘Ecosystem’ and ‘Target Animals’ nodes because it relates to the broader environment through the roles sharks play in maintaining ecosystem function, therefore maintaining humanities life support systems, while also demonstrating a level of concern for declining shark populations. The graph below (Figure 3) displays the seven key arguments addressed in the pro forma submissions and their frequency. As can be seen, almost all the pro forma submissions address concerns that the drum lining may have negative impacts on the overall ecosystem, closely followed by a high level of concern for targeting endangered species or damage to the populations of white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks. The combined total number of submissions from the top seven most frequently occurring pro forma submissions was 1882 (18% of the dataset).
Figure 3 – Pro Forma Submissions by Key Arguments
The most frequently occurring pro forma submission is a section of another submission that was created by Sea Shepherd, which only addresses ‘Ecosystem’ and ‘Target Animals’ concerns. Of the leading pro forma submissions that were able to have their source identified two were created by Sea Shepherd. One was traced to the Conservation Council WA, one was from an article
Chapter 5: Results 152 published in The Conversation, written by a Professor and Director of the Centre for Marine Futures at the University of Western Australia and one was traced to the Australian Marine Conservation Society. The significance of these key players in the construction of drum lining in WA will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.
Key Themes
Alternative Recommended
The ‘Alternative Recommended’ argument featured as the seventh most prominent argument in the data. Data was coded to this node whenever a submission made an argument in favour of an alternative to drum lining. This included actual strategies used to mitigate shark related hazards as well as submissions where the author of the submission recommended the government seek appropriate alternatives, without specifically mentioning an alternative strategy. Alternative strategies only included strategies that were designed to address shark hazard mitigation, rather than those which argued that shark hazard mitigation strategies were unnecessary altogether (those were coded under ‘Disagreement with policy justification’). Of the 1509 arguments for alternative strategies, the most commonly suggested were:
• Education campaigns • Increased aerial patrols • Increased beach signage • Further research into shark behaviour • Shark proof swimming enclosures • Catch and release drum lining – as used in Recife, Brazil • Rebates on personal shark deterrent devices • Electronic fields
Text searches relevant to the leading alternative strategy suggestions are displayed in the graph below.
Chapter 5: Results 153 Figure 4 – ‘Alternative Recommended’ – Text Search Result for Key Terms
Some other suggestions included prohibiting the use of dark coloured swimsuits, the use of nets (as per QLD and NSW) and legalizing recreational shark fishing to decrease shark numbers, however these were not statistically significant. Overall, it was evident that the majority of arguments that recommended alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques were in favour of non-lethal methods, with 616 mentions of the phrase ‘non-lethal’, in addition to approximately 877 references to the above methods of alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques.
The ’Alternative Recommended’ node differs from many of the other nodes in that each recommendation for an alternative is likely to be driven by another argument. Although the relationship between these alternatives and the reasons for them have not been coded, it is assumed to be highly likely that the significant preference for non-lethal alternatives is driven by environmental concerns (although it could also be driven by economic or ethical concerns).
Animal Welfare
‘Animal Welfare’ was one of two categories where the public had expressed ethical concerns about the WA SHMDLP. Initially, the researcher had intended to use one ‘Ethics’ node to code all relevant comments but the obvious prevalence of welfare specific comments meant that this
Chapter 5: Results 154 was given its own node for deeper analysis. The American Veterinary Medical Association (2019) states that an animal in a good state of welfare is not suffering from pain, fear or distress. Therefore, submissions were coded to this node when there was concern expressed about the level of pain or distress that animals interfered with by the WA SHMDLP might be subjected to.
Some of these concerns related to the injuries sustained by being hooked on drum lines, animals drowning on drum lines, the method of removal of drum line hooks from bycatch and the method of destroying target animals (being shot in the head with a rifle). Often arguments were vague and were only identified through key words that were associated with a level of violence inflicted on the animals, for example: ‘cruel’, ‘inhumane’, ‘barbaric’, torture’, ‘butchered’. Overall, there was 1224 submissions coded to this node, representing approximately 12% of the dataset.
There were some potential problems with coding to this node that made it more difficult than other categories. For example, the researcher chose not to assume that a comment was related to animal welfare simply because it mentioned injuries. Many comments referred to the injuries that animals sustained on drum lines in regards to the impact on post-release survival rates and bycatch levels. Therefore, the researcher chose not to assume that these were also welfare related concerns (though acknowledged as likely), which may have impacted the findings by making the level of concern for animal welfare appear less than it was. The researcher also acknowledged that there was a potential for error in coding non-specific welfare related concerns based on single words (such as ‘barbaric’) because it required a greater level of interpretation on the researcher’s behalf than for more explicitly outlined arguments. Figure 5 provides a visual representation of some of the reoccurring themes that appeared in this node.
Chapter 5: Results 155 Figure 5 – Animal Welfare – Text Search Results
Rights
‘Rights’ was the node used to code ethical concerns with the WA SHMDLP that were distinct from animal welfare. This node was titled ‘Rights’ because most of the arguments referred to the rights of different groups. The significant majority of submissions coded to the category were concerned with animal rights. This was expressed through comments like ‘the ocean belongs to sharks’ or ‘it’s their home, leave them alone’, where the phrase ‘animal rights’ was not explicitly used. It was also argued that sharks deserved protection and deserved to live. These comments were all concerned with the wellbeing of animals impacted by drum lining for reasons other than injury and suffering (as covered by ‘Animal Welfare’) and population, species or ecosystem health (as covered by one of the three environmental nodes).
Alternatively, some submissions coded to this node were focused on human rights. It was also argued that humans did not have the right to cull sharks and that politicians did not have the right to act outside of the interests of the public in a democracy. However, as stated above, this was the minority of these arguments and overall 1537 comments were coded to this node, representing approximately 15% of the public.
Chapter 5: Results 156 Bycatch
The second key theme of opposition to the WA SHMDLP was concern for the level of bycatch that the policy was or was capable of catching. Bycatch refers to any non-target animal which includes all species other than bull sharks, white sharks and tiger sharks and specimens of those three species that are less than 3m in length. Of the 10,164 submissions containing arguments opposing the WA SHMDLP there were 1802 arguments specific to bycatch. The majority of these concerns were for dolphins and turtles and there was a significant level of concern for the large number of undersized tiger sharks being caught on hooks. Overall there was 324 mentions of ‘bycatch’ (under various spellings) and 615 mentions of the ‘indiscriminate’ nature of drum lining.
One note worth making was that there was a level of misunderstanding about the drum lining bycatch. Firstly, there was a misconception that the program had already resulted in the deaths of dolphins and turtles (of which it caught none) and secondly, there was a misconception that white sharks were the only target species meaning that some people perceived all non-white shark catches to be bycatch (meaning all animals as the program failed to catch any white sharks). There is no quantitative measurement of these misconceptions, but it is estimated to be in the small minority of submissions relating to bycatch.
Figure 6 – Bycatch by Type – Text Search Results
Chapter 5: Results 157 Cost
The financial costs associated with operating the WA SHMDLP did not generate much discussion in this dataset. The ‘Cost’ node was used when an individual made an argument that the program was too expensive to operate or that there were cheaper alternatives. These arguments only featured 366 times in the 10,301 submissions made and was the second least frequently occurring theme in the dataset (followed by ‘Impact on Tourism Industry’, which was the only other financially related theme).
Disagreement with Policy justifications
The fourth most reoccurring argument found in this dataset was ‘Disagreement with policy justifications’, featuring in 2032 of the 10,301 submissions coded: approximately 20% of submissions. This argument was expressed in a variety of ways but had the overarching theme that the policy being implemented as a matter of public safety was misguided. In many cases the government was accused of implementing the WA SHMDLP due to other reasons, inconsistent with those stated in the policy proposal and in other cases it was argued that the threat posed by large sharks to bathers had been overstated and the policy was not necessary at all. There was a strong perception that the policy was a ‘political stunt’ designed to attract votes by appearing responsive to focal issues, especially given the amount of media attention that the spate of shark bite incidents leading up to 2014 received. There was also the perception that the government was driven by appeasing minority interest groups, such as the WA tourism industry.
Alternatively, there was a general disagreement with the idea that shark bite incidents off WA posed an imminent threat to the public, as stated by the WASG and used to gain the exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) that allowed white sharks to be pre-emptively caught. It was argued that the number of shark fatalities were statistically insignificant and that the policy was motivated by fear rather than actual risk. One reoccurring theme was for people to compare the risk of shark attack to the risk of other things responsible for human death, with leading comparisons being to cows (16), obesity (21), smoking (16), tobacco (10), alcohol (50), drowning (115), cars (92), bees (23), vending machines (15), coconuts (31), roads (42) and dogs (27). Other key phrases used in these arguments related to the implementation of the policy being
Chapter 5: Results 158 ‘reactionary’, ‘unwarranted’ and a ‘knee jerk reaction’. A text search of these arguments has allowed for a visual representation of the reoccurring phrases. It is noted that the phrase ‘more people’ is used in arguments that if sharks meant to kill people than ‘more people’ would be dead and that ‘more people’ are killed by other causes than sharks. As can be seen, the argument that the policy is a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction featured frequently and will be discussed more in the following chapter.
Figure 7 - Disagreement with Policy Justification – Text Search Results
Ecosystem
Concern for the ecosystem that would be negatively impacted by the implementation of drum lining off the WA coastline was the most frequently reoccurring theme in this dataset, featuring in 6,150 of the 10,301 submissions: approximately 60% of the time. As mentioned above, this was anticipated by the researcher due to the nature of the submission platform (WA EPA). These arguments referred to broader environmental concerns where an individual has stated that drum lining may be detrimental to the environment without being specific about why, where or how and it included specific concerns relating to the collapse of the ecosystem resulting from the removal of apex predators. Coding to this node differed from coding to the ‘Target Animals’ or ‘Bycatch’ nodes, which are also environmentally focused because data was coded here when the concern extended beyond individual animals, or species. For example, where there was concern about targeting an endangered species (white sharks), this would be coded to ‘Target Animals’, whereas concern about targeting ‘apex predators’ would be coded to ‘Ecosystem’. It was noted
Chapter 5: Results 159 that there appeared to be a good understanding among the public regarding the role of apex predators in functioning ecosystems as well as ecosystem collapse and trophic cascades.
Some arguments expressed a localized concern for the areas where drum lines were deployed, while there was also a level of concern for the entire population range of white sharks, meaning the ecosystem as far away as South Africa, as well as flow on effects that would impact the entire world. While most of these were standalone arguments, many were linked to the idea ecosystem collapse would be detrimental to humans by causing the collapse of fisheries or leading to a reduction in the earth’s production of oxygen. Below is a graph of the key words and phrases that were identified in these arguments.
Figure 8 – Ecosystem – Text Search Results
Errors within WA SHMDLP
In this dataset it was apparent that there was a significant amount of criticism of the policy design of the WA SHMDLP. The ‘Errors within the WA SHMDLP’ node was coded to when a criticism of a specific aspect of the program or the quality of the policy was made. Unlike ‘Disagreement with policy justifications’ where a person may argue that the policy was unwarranted because the risk posed by sharks is negligible, submissions coded to this node did not necessarily express disagreement with the need to implement a shark hazard mitigation policy. For example, many submissions were not generally opposed to the idea of drum lining to improve shark hazard mitigation but expressed the idea that specific elements of the operation of this program were flawed. Furthermore, this differed from ‘Ineffective’ where it was argued that
Chapter 5: Results 160 drum lining was not an effective way to mitigation shark related hazards because, as mentioned above, these comments were not necessarily critical of drum lining, rather, the specifics of this drum lining policy. However, it was noted that there was a high degree of overlap between different themes when the specifics of the policy were critiqued. Alternatively, the WASG was criticized for the way that it implemented the policy. Overall, a total of 1,318 submissions addressed concerns about policy flaws, representing nearly 13% of public opinion in this dataset.
Approximately 18 criticisms of the program were noted by the researcher and have been listed below:
• Non-target animals should be tagged prior to release to aid scientific research; • The program targets two species of shark (tiger and bull) which are not considered dangerous on the west coast; • The large hook size that was designed to minimize bycatch is not effective and is causing more significant injuries to non-target animals than a smaller hook would – likely impacting post-release mortality rates; • The type of bait used on the hooks is inappropriate for catching two of the three target species (white and bull); • Drum lines are almost exclusively catching tiger sharks, which have not been confirmed responsible for a fatality in WA; • Drum lining in the summer months is inconsistent with white shark migration patterns, meaning that it is an inappropriate time of year to target the species of shark responsible for the most fatalities; • Contractors employed to operate the South-West MMA are inadequately trained for the task – as is evident from misidentification of species; • Policy goals are vague and lack measurable definitions of success; • Insufficient research has been conducted into the post-release mortality rates of non- target animals; • Placement of drum lines are too close to commercial diving areas; • Placement of drum lines are closer to shore than allowed by the EPBC Act (1999) exemption; Catch guidelines are arbitrary as sharks less than 3m in length are also capable of causing human fatality;
Chapter 5: Results 161 • Sharks killed in the operation of the program (intended and non-intended) are not used for marine research; • Policy was based on misinformation and lacks sufficient supporting research (for example, comparisons to QLD drum lining are not valid due to the differing white shark populations); • Perceived lack of transparency around catch data; • Hooks are baited at night when recreational bathers are not using the ocean, increasing the rate of scavenger-type predators (tiger sharks) likely to be caught and increasing the likelihood that non-target specimens will die prior to release; • The WA EPA was not adequately consulted prior to the implementation of the drum lines; and, • It is inappropriate to use Mako Sharks caught as bycatch of the program as bait.
Similarly to the ‘Alternative Recommended’ theme, arguments designated to this node were likely driven by other concerns. For example, arguing that drum lining in the summer months was not appropriate for catching white sharks may be driven by the idea that the program was not effective at enhancing bather safety. Alternatively, arguing that the large hook size was causing significant injury to non-target animals and impacting their survival rates was likely an argument driven by environmental concerns.
Overall, the leading criticism was the design of the hooks. As stated in a previous chapter, the WA Government used hooks significantly larger than those used by drum lining programs in other jurisdictions to reduce bycatch. However, catch data revealed that this was not effective. This criticism appeared at least 460 times (it was difficult to ascertain the exact number with text searches due to the many ways that the argument was phrased) but this number was influenced by the fact that the argument appeared in a pro forma submission that appeared 338 times.
Impact on Tourism Industry
The ‘Impact on the Tourism industry’ was the least frequently occurring argument that occurred more than 100 times in the dataset, occurring 264 times, representing 2.5%. As
Chapter 5: Results 162 mentioned above, this category, along with ‘Cost of Operation’ were the two economically relevant themes of argument that appeared in the data. This category was interesting because it demonstrated that there was a level of public concern contradictory to the argument that the policy was needed to protect the tourism industry, as stated by the government in implementing the WA SHMDLP. There were three reoccurring arguments coded to this node. Firstly, people from outside of WA threatened to boycott visiting the state until drum lines had been removed. Secondly, it was argued that tourists were primarily drawn to WA for ecotourism reasons and drum lining was contradictory to the interests of these people and finally, that removing the local population of large sharks would devastate local diving businesses that rely on showing customers large sharks.
Ineffective
The third most frequently occurring theme in this dataset was the argument that the program was ineffective. This was a combination of arguing that drum lining does not enhance bather safety and arguments that claimed drum lining actually increased the risk to bathers through one of three ways. Firstly, and most commonly, it was argued that placing baited drum lines in the vicinity of popular beaches would lure more large and potentially dangerous sharks to the area than would otherwise be there. Secondly, it was argued that sharks would be attracted by smaller hooked animals that were thrashing and bleeding on drum lines prior to release (or death) and finally, it was argued that dumping carcasses sea would also increase the number of sharks near popular beaches. There were also occasional mentions (23) of the WASG’s decision to remove the drum lines for the Rottnest Channel Swim as evidence to support the idea that drum lines were perceived, even by the government, to lure sharks towards beaches.
The ‘Ineffective’ theme was picked up 2896 times in the dataset, in nearly 30% of submissions. It is important to note that this is a valuable finding from the data because, as mentioned above, the nature of the WA EPA, as an agency concerned with environmental matters, may mean that people making submissions to this platform would have an increased likelihood of raising environmental concerns before any other type of concerns about the policy. Therefore, the fact that such a significant number of people made submissions doubting the effectiveness of the
Chapter 5: Results 163 policy to an agency that was not focused on this may suggest that this was a more widely held perception within the public than is reflected in the data. Furthermore, this argument only occurred in two of the most frequently occurring seven pro forma submissions featuring 615 times in the total 1882 pro forma submissions, suggesting that the frequency of the ‘ineffective’ theme was significant in non-pro forma submissions also.
Legal
Legal concerns were stated in approximately 13% (1371) of the public submissions to the WA EPA. Submissions were coded to this node for three reasons. Firstly, when it was argued that the policy was inconsistent with current environmental policies, secondly, that it was inconsistent with animal welfare laws and finally, because it was believed that it did not meet the requirements for an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). Most submissions coded to this node included the name of specific laws that the WA SHMDLP was believed to be in violation of. However, submissions were also coded here when it was argued that the WA SHMDLP was illegal, although no actual breached legislation had been mentioned and when it was argued that the target animals were ‘protected’ (different to ‘endangered’ which was coded to ‘Target Animals’). Submissions arguing that the program should be illegal were not coded to this node and were coded to other nodes depending on the reason they gave for the argument (coded to ‘Other’ when argument was unspecific).
The most frequently cited piece of legislation was the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) (239 mentions) which was used to argue that the target animals were protected and should not have been proactively hunted and to argue that the policy was in breach of this legislation. It was noted that there was a level of misunderstanding about the exemption to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) meaning that it was perceived that the policy was in violation of this Act. International agreements such as CITES and the CMS, as well as the Commonwealth Government Great White Shark Recovery Plan were also frequently mentioned. Other, less frequently mentioned laws included the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), Environment Protection Act 1986 (WA), Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA). It is noted that there is a high likelihood that those arguing about specific legislation breaches are also concerned about the topic to which the legislation relates (for example, Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) for animal
Chapter 5: Results 164 welfare concerns and EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) for environmental concerns). However, in cases where this was not explicitly stated these were only coded to ‘Legal’ to reduce the amount of interpretation of the data required by the researcher.
Public opposition
Nearly 8% (783) of the public argued that the WA SHMDLP was not in the interest of the public which was argued in two different ways. The first way was that public opinion had not been adequately gauged prior to the implementation of the policy and the second was that the majority of the public was opposed to drum lining in WA. There were occasional mentions of the protests that occurred at Cottesloe and around the world and a poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald that found that 82% of the public opposed the WA SHMDLP. Furthermore, it was noted that this argument was not present in any of the leading pro forma submissions suggesting that this perception may be more prevalent in the public than was represented by the data. The fact that this dataset only contained 78 arguments in support of drum lining compared to the 25962 against it may also support this.
Target Animals
Concern for ‘Target Animals’ was identified in 3481 submissions in this dataset, representing about a third of the public and the second most frequently occurring theme in this dataset. Submissions were coded to this node when they contained arguments that were specific to white, tiger or bull sharks longer than 3m. This was a combination of general concerns about shark populations or often more specific concerns about targeting endangered white sharks. There was also a level of concern for the large number of tiger sharks being killed as a result of the policy. The graph below illustrates some of the key phrases that were used to make these arguments.
Chapter 5: Results 165 Figure 9 – Target Animals – Text Search Results
Other
The final node used for coding submissions in opposition of drum lining was ‘Other’. This node was created to code themes that were not identified as significant after the first 400 submissions had been coded. It also included all non-English submissions (which were translated using Google Translate to ensure they were indeed opposed to drum lining) and all submissions that were opposed to drum lining but no reason for this was provided or the reason was too vague to interpret enough to assign to a different node.
A total of 914 submissions from the 10,301 were coded to this node (approximately 9%) which was a large enough sample that the researcher conducted further analysis into the reoccurring themes coded to this node. The two most frequently occurring themes here were submissions that expressed opposition without a reason (355) or submissions in languages other than English (326). This was followed by concern regarding Australia’s reputation on the international stage (98), comparisons to Japanese and Dutch whaling (54) and concern for future generations (32) (it is noted that this likely stemmed from environmental concerns). The few remaining arguments were coded to a child ‘Other’ node (49) and mostly included arguments about why shark bite incidents have increased in frequency and did not necessarily relate to the WA SHMLP or EPA Assessment and were statistically insignificant, regardless.
Chapter 5: Results 166 Figure 10 – Themes within ‘Other’ – Text Search Results
Although the submissions in languages other than English were all recorded in opposition of the program, the specific arguments within these submissions were not recorded. However, it was noted through manually translating each one that they were almost all opposed to the program for environmental reasons. A breakdown of the languages is provided in the graph below. It is noted that the vast majority of these were in French.
Figure 11 – Non-English Submissions by Language
It was assumed that submissions made in other languages were made from outside of Australia. This was interesting because it further demonstrated the level of international attention given to
Chapter 5: Results 167 the WA SHMDLP. And, while submissions in English were coded to other nodes by theme, it was noted that many of these had been written from individuals outside of Australia. This was due to the large number of English submissions with non-English words included, submissions written in very poor English and submissions where the author had noted country of Origin or stated that they will no longer visit Australia.
Support
Of the 10,301 submissions coded to in this dataset, only 50 were identified as containing arguments that were in support of the WA SHMDLP, in which 78 distinct arguments were found. On average the ‘Support’ submissions tended to be significantly shorter and less detailed than those coded to ‘Opposition’ with most containing only one argument. These submissions also differed slightly from those coded to ‘Opposition’ in the way that they were answered. For example, in ‘Opposition’ submissions tended to make arguments against drum lining, whereas in ‘Support’ arguments were often made regarding the EPA assessment process rather than the drum lining.
There were several potential issues with this sample of data for public support. Firstly, it was acknowledged that those in favour of drum lining may have sought out different avenues to express this than the WA EPA. However, extensive investigations and applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) to various Departments within the WASG have not located any. Furthermore, this sample is so small that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it. Despite this, nine themes were identified from these submissions.
Chapter 5: Results 168 Figure 12 – Themes of Support
The three most frequently occurring arguments in this sample are ‘Concern for human life’, ‘Shark populations have increased’ and ‘Comparisons to other Programs’. The remaining themes included arguments that:
• the environmental impacts of the program would be negligible (7); • the costs associated with conducting an assessment are too high (4); • the majority of the public is in favour of drum lining (3); • the tourism industry is being negatively impacted by increased shark bite incidents (2); and, • the policy is well designed as does not need to be assessed (2).
‘Concern for human life’ was the most frequently occurring theme, appearing in 27 of the 50 submissions in support of the WA SHMDLP. Those making these arguments expressed the belief that the environmental impacts were outweighed by the risk to public safety. There were 19 submissions which argued that the drum lining was appropriate because shark numbers had increased, many of which sighted the protection of white sharks as the cause for this. The final significant theme in this data was comparisons to other drum lining programs deemed successful. This appeared in 10 submissions (20%) and referenced shark hazard mitigation programs in
Chapter 5: Results 169 NSW and QLD (there was a level of misconception about drum lining in NSW). It was argued that the WA SHMDLP would be less harmful than the QLD program that used a combination of nets and drum lines, that there was no public outcry about the east coast programs and that these programs had not led to the extinction of white sharks.
Other Notes
While this dataset aimed to measure public opinion, it is worth noting that some of the submissions were from organisations or experts in this field. Project AWARE is a global non- profit organisation working with scuba divers to protect the oceans and represents 30,000 divers and 200 dive businesses within Australia alone. Project Aware made a submission towards the end of the 10-day submission period which addressed the ‘Alternative Recommended’, ‘Bycatch’, ‘Impacts on the Tourism Industry’ and ‘Ecosystem’ themes. Some other submissions worth noting were from the Managing Director of Sea Shepherd, a Field Ecologist from the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a marine documentary maker for the BBC and Discovery Channel, shark hazard mitigation expert Christopher Neff, a dive organization with 10 staff (location not stated) and Surfers for Cetaceans.
Another significant submission for this research was from Perth Scuba. Perth Scuba is a Perth based business that had been operating for nearly ten years at the time of the submission and was the only PADI Career Development Centre in WA (world’s largest recreational diver training, certification and membership organization). In this submission, it was argued that the WA Government ‘discarded the submission period and instated the Shark Cull policy in-lieu of industry submissions’. It was also stated that all except one dive shop across WA were opposed to the WA SHMDLP as their businesses depended on a healthy ecosystem provided by sharks. This submission was particularly interesting for the research because it was contradictory to information received from Tourism WA which expressed they had received anecdotal support for drum lining from the Tourism Industry. It was also noted that Perth Scuba posted the second most frequently occurring pro forma submission discussed above (originally created by AMCS) to their website and therefore, may have also acted as a key party in informing public opinion about the WA SHMLP.
Chapter 5: Results 170 One other note worth making about this dataset was that some submissions included references or URLs to supporting materials. Approximately 86 URLs were included in submissions, of which 38% were links to academic materials, 17% to government reports and webpages, 24% to environmental organisations (Sea Shepherd representing the majority of these), 10% to the news media and 9% to other webpages and fact sheets. Interestingly, one of the most frequently cited scientific sources used to support arguments opposing the WA SHMDLP for environmental reasons was a report commissioned by the DF themselves. Similarly to the pro forma submissions, an examination of the URLs provided by the public in this dataset was useful for the research because it was direct evidence of the public being influenced by other groups of claims-makers. This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Finally, a text search revealed that the term ‘cull’ appeared 4,576 times in this dataset. While this does not identify how many submissions, and therefore, people used this term to describe the WA SHMDLP, this number is considered to constitute frequent use of this term in this dataset. This is significant because this term was highly contentious and is therefore, evidence that the public did consider the WA SHMDLP to fit the definition of a cull on sharks.
City of Cockburn Community
Survey Findings
Only 11% of respondents to this community survey opposed the Eco Shark Barrier Trial at Coogee Beach, with 89% supporting it as a non-lethal shark hazard mitigation technique. While many of the comments stated support without listing specific reasons, 22% of respondents stated that it was supported due to its’ negligible impact on the environment. Furthermore, 24% specifically stated that it was preferable to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 or other programs that sought to kill marine wildlife. This is particularly relevant to the research given that the respondents were not being asked about the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, yet 24% mentioned it and might highlight how much attention the policy received. Furthermore, it is noted that the high level of support for the initiative might suggest that there was a level of public concern about shark related hazards. This is consistent with the findings from the submissions to the EPA, which demonstrated significant environmental concerns and support for non-lethal shark hazard mitigation alternatives to drum lining.
Chapter 5: Results 171 Online Submissions to the Western Australia Department of
Fisheries Findings
Approximately half of the submissions (51) were in response to the catch-and-kill order that followed the non-fatal bite incident to a diver off Esperance on 8 October 2013. 50 of these comments were opposed to the order and one requested more information without revealing support or opposition. Of the 50 submissions opposing the order, the overwhelming public sentiment related to animal rights and the idea that sharks should be left alone in their territory, with 52% of arguments expressing this. This was followed by the belief that a catch-and-kill order was ineffective because it could not guarantee capture of the same shark or failed to enhance bather safety (26%), was unwarranted (16%), concerned a protected species (12%) or related to animal welfare concerns (12%).
A further 28 submissions related to the catch-and-kill order that was made on 23 November following a fatal shark bite incident. Of these, 18% expressed support for the order and concern over the increasing rate of shark bite frequency in WA. Again, there was strong opposition to the order (82%) with animal rights concerns featuring most frequently (46%), followed by suggested non-lethal alternatives (18%). This is indicative of a shift in attitudes following this fatal shark bite incident, however, it is noted that there was still overwhelming public opposition to lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques in the lead up to the announcement of the WA SHMLP on 10 December 2014.
The remaining 24 submissions related to the announcement of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, of which 96% expressed opposition to. The reasons for opposition shifted from those expressed previously in this dataset, in that 46% of these submissions related to environmental impacts of the program. As the previous single catch-and-kill orders discussed above only targeted single specimens, it is not surprising that the public became more concerned about the environment following the announcement of a policy that sought to pre-emptively catch many sharks. However, in line with the other submissions, ‘animal rights’ was the second most frequently expressed argument (25%), followed by the argument that the policy would not enhance bather safety (17%).
Chapter 5: Results 172 From the total 104 submissions collected, no one expressed an argument about the impact shark bite incidents were having on tourism and only 5% of people stated that they believed that white shark populations had increased in recent years. It was also noted that there was no mention of bull sharks or tiger sharks in any of these submissions, suggesting that they were not perceived to be dangerous by the public. This dataset is interesting because there is a much greater level of concern regarding animal rights than in the submissions made to the EPA, but overall, it is consistent with the findings discussed above, in that there appears to have been a lack of public concern regarding shark bite incidents and a lack of public support for the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Conclusion
Overall, this dataset has provided valuable insight into public sentiment about the drum lining that occurred in WA in 2014. While there are potential errors with the qualitative coding style used and limitations with the data as discussed above, it is evident that there was significant public opposition to the program. As anticipated, in the submissions to the EPA, environmental concerns were the most frequently occurring theme, with concern for the ecosystem the single most frequently occurring theme identified in the data. This high level of concern for the environment was also reflected in the survey results from the City of Cockburn. However, the high level of concern regarding the effectiveness of drum lining to enhance bather safety was a significant finding from the submissions to the EPA, as this was higher than expected given the nature of the submission platform and the fact that it appeared in a large number of individually written submissions (not only pro forma). Furthermore, it was noted that there was a strong perception that sharks should be left alone in their natural environment, even shortly after a shark bite incident, which was overwhelmingly found in the submissions made to the DF.
5.4 PART 3 – MEDIA
Social Problem 1 – Shark Bite Incidents in WA
The results from the search outlined above yielded 690 articles (917 of which 227 where duplicates and not coded). The researcher manually filtered these according to relevance to the topic which left 418 articles used for this sample of data. Of the 272 articles that were not
Chapter 5: Results 173 deemed relevant to the construction of shark bite events in WA as a social problem, many only very briefly mentioned ‘shark attacks’ but this was not the primary focus of the article (for example, articles about victim tributes or beach enclosure construction), some were entirely unrelated to shark attacks in WA and many mentioned attacks but were about the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014 and therefore, only relevant to the construction of SP2.
There were 94 different publications that published articles identified in this search. Of these, the ten sources that published more than 10 articles relevant to the construction of this social problems were Australian Associated Press (78), Australian Broadcasting Corporation (65), The Sunday Times (24), The Australian (22), The Times (16), The West Australian and Agence France Presse (14). This is a combination of state, national and international publications which was followed by the local Busselton Dunsborough Mail (9). It is interesting to note the focus given to this topic by a French publication, given that French was the leading non-English language identified in the public opinion dataset, discussed previously. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that this topic was covered in Canada (8) and the UK (21), however, as these are mostly English-speaking countries, the significance of the impact of this on the public submissions to the EPA is unknown.
Figure 13 – Newspaper Coverage by Location (SP1)
It was expected that there would be overlap in the timeline of the media’s representation of the two social problems that this research aimed to examine. In November 2012, following a fatal
Chapter 5: Results 174 attack, the media began reporting on the WASG’s consideration of the potential for a shark cull to occur, which was accompanied by some criticism and therefore represents the beginning of the construction of the second social problem (SP2) that this research aims to examine. However, only 9 articles out of the 690 were deemed relevant to the construction of shark attacks in WA as a social problem following December 2013, when the government began announcing increased shark hazard mitigation techniques. Therefore, it is noted that there was less overlap in the timeline of these two social problems, as represented in the media, than was expected.
The articles were coded using NVivo 12 Plus, where the publication details of each article were coded as ‘cases’ and the content was coded in a series of ‘nodes’. Coding the cases has allowed for the creation of a timeline that displays the level of interest from local, state, interstate, national and international publications over the period of time that shark bite incidents in WA were being constructed as a social problem.
The framework for coding this dataset was based on the TCMA. As outlined in Chapter 3, TCMA is used to explain how social problems are constructed by examining what conditions are put forward as social problems (claims), who is making the assertion that they are problems (claims-makers) and what techniques are they using (claims-making processes). It included some elements of the ‘claims’ component of the theory, including ‘grounds’, ‘rhetoric idioms’, ’rhetorical motifs’, ’warrants’ and ‘conclusions’ and the ‘claims-makers’ component of the theory. It was expected that there would be a level of overlap between the arguments from the WA EPA Public Submissions dataset which supported drum lining in WA and the arguments in newspaper articles that played a role in constructing SP1. These arguments fall into the ‘warrants’ component of the theory because, put simply, where ‘grounds’ aims to define the problem, ‘warrants’ justify how it is a problem and why is needs addressing. Therefore, under the parent node for ‘warrants’ the following child node were used: ‘Comparisons to Other Programs (QLD, NSW)’, ‘Concern for Human Safety’, ‘Impacts on the Tourism Industry’, ‘Public Concern’ and ‘Increasing Shark Populations’. It is noted that the ‘Comparisons to Other Programs’ was only coded to in regard to supporting other drum lining or shark netting programs. This was not coded to when QLD or NSW programs were criticized (which occurred frequently), as this does not relate to this aspect of the project, which focuses on the shark bite incidents as the problem.
Chapter 5: Results 175 It is noted that from the 418 articles deemed relevant to this research, a large number did not play a significant role in the social construction of shark bite incidents in WA as a social problem, meaning that very little, if any, information was coded from them into nodes. A total of 115 articles were only coded to ‘cases’ meaning that only their publication details were recorded because the content within did not yield any significant information. Only 33 articles had more than 10 pieces of relevant information within them, leaving 270 articles with between 1 and 9 pieces of relevant information within. Although all of these articles had been manually coded and identified as somewhat relevant to the research, it was very common (especially during the beginning of the timeframe before attacks became more frequent) for articles to describe the details of an individual attack without linking it to other attack incidents and therefore, the social problem of increased shark bite incidents in WA. Therefore, although a total of 418 articles discussed shark bite incidents in WA during the timeframe, only 303 specifically identified them as a social problem. The following graph illustrates the number of articles per month that were relevant to the construction of SP1 to allow for an understanding of the trends of media interest in the topic. Each of the peaks represents one of the seven shark related fatalities that occurred during this timeframe.
Figure 14 – Number of Articles per Month (SP1)
Findings
The first component of the Claim are the Grounds, which aim to define the social problem. The ‘Grounds’ node was used to define the problem of increased shark bite incidents in WA through
Chapter 5: Results 176 numerical estimates. Any time that an article defined the problem with the use of numbers the content was coded to this node. This occurred a total of 164 times in 134 articles and was one of the most frequently occurring strategies used in making the claim about SP1. The most frequently occurring use of numbers to define the problem occurred following the fifth fatality on 14 July 2012, with ‘fifth’ occurring 45 times and ‘five’ occurring 31 times (eg. “The fifth fatal attack in 10 months”). However, it was noted that the independent shark bite incidents began to be recognized as a broader social problem as early as October 2011, following a string of three fatalities over a seven-week period. Specifically, NBC News was among the first to tie the events together, publishing an article in October 2011 that referred to the increase as a ‘surge of attacks’ and an ‘unprecedented situation’.
The three rhetoric idioms identified in this dataset were endangerment, entitlement and loss. The ‘Rhetoric of Endangerment’ was most prominently used in this claim, featuring in 86 of the articles, with phrases like “What lurks beneath” and “a rogue man-eater preying on a renowned aquatic playground”. This was followed by the ‘Rhetoric of Loss’ which was identified in 62 articles. This was found in phrases like “surfing is no longer part of my life” and was mostly related to the disintegration of the surfing community and cancellation of community events due to shark fears. Finally, the ‘Rhetoric of Entitlement featured occasionally (in 8 articles) in this dataset with comments like “populated swimming and surfing areas are not ‘their territory’, they are ours. We have the same right to be there as any other species”.
There were six Rhetorical Motifs that were identified in this dataset. As displayed in the graph below, ‘shark attack’, ‘deadliest place in the world’ and ‘shark attack capital’ were the three most frequently occurring phrases used in making the claim about this social problem. ‘Shark attack’ was used to describe shark bite incidents in 95% of the articles, and a text search revealed it was used a total of 1638 times across these articles. The phrase ‘rogue shark’ was picked up 21 times in 11 articles and ‘killer shark’ 11 times in 10 articles. Finally, ‘shark attack hotspot’ appeared between February and November of 2013, featuring 9 times in six articles. The second most frequently occurring Rhetorical Motif ‘deadliest place in the world’ was a phrase attributed to WA Fisheries Senior Shark Research Scientist, Rory McAuley in April 2012 following the fourth fatality on 31 March 2012. However, this phrase seems to have been coined by the media in response to statements made by McAuley, rather than by McAuley himself. This Rhetorical
Chapter 5: Results 177 Motif faded out of use in this dataset by the end of 2013. The second most frequently occurring Rhetorical Motif (‘shark attack capital’) also began appearing in April 2012 and continued until the end of the data collection timeframe in May 2014.
Figure 15 – Rhetorical Motifs (SP1)
Rhetorical Motifs (SP1) 1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 Shark attack Deadliest place in Shark attack Rogue shark Killer shark Shark attack the world capital hotspot
In the ‘Warrants’ node the most frequently occurring argument in this newspaper dataset was the arguments about the ‘Impacts on Tourism’, which was found in 51 articles out of the 303 articles (17%) used in the construction of SP1. It is noted that not all of these mentions specifically stated that shark bite incidents in WA were negatively impacting tourism; many were vague and just stated that attacks had occurred on beaches that were popular with tourists. This was followed closely by ‘Increasing Shark Populations’ (15%) and ‘Public Concern’ (13%). ‘Concerns for Human Safety’ and ‘Comparisons to other Programs’ were not frequently occurring themes in this dataset. ‘Increasing Shark Populations’ were believed to be the result of decades of protection for white sharks and the species’ ability to repair it’s population numbers. It was noted that, in many cases, the argument was simply stated without supporting evidence and where evidence was provided, was usually in the form of anecdotal claims from the fishing industry based on increased sightings.
Chapter 5: Results 178 It is important to note that none of the three most frequently occurring arguments in these articles are supported by any evidence. As discussed in Part 1 of this chapter, overall tourism in WA did not suffer in the lead up to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, despite anecdotal claims. Furthermore, ‘Increasing Shark Populations’, as the second most frequently occurring argument in this dataset, is an argument that is not supported by any scientific evidence. As seen in Part 1 of this chapter, the CSIRO reported to the DPC that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that white shark populations are on the rise. However, the lack of supporting evidence is not relevant to how the issue is portrayed to an audience and constructed as a social problem. Furthermore, while ‘Public Concern’ about shark bite incidents appears as a reoccurring theme in these newspaper articles, the researcher has not located any significant evidence that there was any real level of concern from the public (see Part 2 of Chapter 5).
As will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter, documents collected through applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) suggest that concerns for the impact that shark bite incidents would have on the tourism industry were a primary focus of the WASG in implementing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, despite Tourism WA not having any data on this and the tourism reports suggesting tourism was not impacted. Therefore, this suggests that the media may have played a role in promoting this argument. It is also noted that the media did not play a large role in promoting the ‘Concerns for Human Safety’ arguments despite the WA Government using this as their primary justification for the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Figure 16 – Themes identified in the data (Warrants for SP1)
Chapter 5: Results 179 The ‘Conclusions’ node was coded to every time that there was a suggestion as to how the problem of increased frequency of shark bite incidents in WA should be dealt with. It was expected that there would be a focus on beach closures, aerial patrols and other non-lethal solutions to this social problem in the beginning of the time frame. However, it is noted that even the first two ‘Conclusions’ recorded in the timeframe were both calls for drum lining in response to a shark bite incident. A text search of the ‘Conclusions’ node revealed that the most frequently occurring recommendation for how to solve the problem of increased frequency of shark bite incidents was to issue a ‘kill order’ (49), followed by cull (44), shark nets (36), for white shark to lose their protected status (43), increased patrols (33) and research (16). It is noted that the text search also includes mentions of a conclusion even if it was being dismissed. For example, Premier Barnett regularly dismissed the idea of introducing shark nets on the basis of environmental concerns. The initial announcement of the government’s decision to implement drum lining in response to increased shark bite incidents occurred in November 2012, approximately one year before the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was implemented. Although it was noted that this referred to single catch-and-kill orders following bite incidents, rather than pre-emptively killing large sharks as the program aimed to do.
Finally, the Claims-Makers node was used to code any content that referred to a specific group or individual making arguments about how the increased rate of shark bite events in WA constituted a social problem. Interestingly, Fisheries Ministers and researchers from within the DF seemed to play a significant role in making the claim about this social problem. As mentioned above, Rory McAuley from the DF appears to have inspired the description of WA as the ‘deadliest place on earth’ which gained significant traction in the media. In addition to this, Fisheries Minister, Norman Moore was identified as a leading claims-maker in the construction of the social problem of increased shark bite incidents in WA.
Moore was quoted Claims-Making in multiple articles and mentioned a total of 131 times in the dataset. He began drawing individual incidents together as part of a broader problem following the third fatality in less than two months in October 2011 when he claimed that the “government had to act”. He argued that the increased frequency in bite events were “cause for great alarm” and that he was “very distressed” about the situation, stating that he would be lobbying in Canberra to end the ban on recreational and commercial white shark fishing. In addition to this,
Chapter 5: Results 180 Moore made repeated comments about the impact that shark bite incidents would have on the WA Tourism Industry.
In two 2012 articles published by the ABC, Moore was quoted as saying that due to his previous experience as Minister for Tourism was aware “that south-east of England is an area where we get many of our tourists and they are not happy when they hear about shark attacks or crocodile attacks or things of that nature and it doesn't help our tourism industry”. Furthermore, in an article published by The Independent in 2012, he warned that the State’s tourism industry was already being impacted by the shark bite events. This is significant to the research because, despite repeated efforts, no data from the tourism industry was able to be located during this research project to support these claims, despite the government leaning on this argument as a leading justification for the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
There was only one recorded incident of claims-making from the ‘tourism industry’ itself, which occurred in a 2012 article published in the New Zealand Herald. The article claimed that there were calls from the tourism industry for a shark cull to take place after the recent attacks had caused visitors to stay away from the southwest. However, several WA businesses dependent on the tourism industry acted as claims-makers in the constructed of this social problem. In April 2012 the ABC reported that an unnamed Busselton dive business was being “inundated with cancellations” due to a recent fatality and in October 2012 the Director of the Perth Diving Academy reported to The West Australian that the increased bite incidents were having a “big impact on business”. Furthermore, following the attack on a Rockingham Wild Encounters tour operator in 2010, the Director for this business was quoted in two 2011 articles claiming that he had been campaigning for a year for government action to remove aggressive, nuisance sharks which were “absolutely hurting the tourist trade”.
The MRBRC were identified as claims-makers in this dataset in November 2013 when they claimed that “because great white sharks were a protected species under federal law, there were now too many of them close to shore and those larger than three metres should be culled”. This is significant to the research because this group were also identified as claims-makers in the documents discussed in Part 1 of this chapter.
Chapter 5: Results 181 The two remaining significant claims-makers identified in this dataset were Ian Stubbs and Tony Barrass. Busselton Shire President, Ian Stubbs, began claims-making following the death of Kyle Burden in September 2011 and was recorded in The Australian as calling for the death of the shark responsible. Stubb’s claims-making increased following the April 2012 fatal attack on Peter Kurmann, the husband of a Busselton Council member. In five more articles ranging from local to world news, he called for a cull based on the impact that shark bite incidents were having on local tourism. He argued that “There is absolutely no doubt that it is impacting on our tourism”, “the increase in shark attacks had affected tourism in the region as visitors were becoming reluctant to swim at the local beaches” and that he thought “there should be a culling program because it's gone too crazy". This is interesting for this research because, although data was not collected form this period of time from the applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) submitted to the City of Busselton, this is inconsistent with the stance of the City regarding shark hazard mitigation in 2013-2014.
Tony Barrass, the WA Editor of The Australian, made several claims about the social problem of increased shark bite incidents in WA. Between 2010 and 2012, Barrass authored three articles relevant to this research in which he claimed that people “should be able to feel comfortable about going for a dip within easy reach of the shore without the haunting theme to Jaws permeating our minds” and “Populated swimming and surfing areas are not ``their territory'', they are ours. We have the same right to be there as any other species”. Finally, his claims were supported by one member of the public who was interviewed by The Sunday Times, who stated “I have to agree with Tony Barrass”. This claims-maker is interesting because he draws on the Rhetoric of Entitlement more significantly than any other claims maker identified in this research.
Finally, while Premier Colin Barnett was mentioned 146 times during the dataset and was ultimately responsible for implementing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 as a Conclusion to SP1, he did not appear to act as a leading claims-maker in the construction of the SP1. Despite this, he began to describe the isolated events as a broader social problem in October 2011 (similarly to Moore) when he stated that he was “very concerned” and “culling could be considered if those sharks are staying around popular beaches”. It is interesting to note that Barnett was an early advocate for “culling” when he and the DPC remained adamant that the WA SHMDLP 2013 –
Chapter 5: Results 182 2014 did not constitute a cull. Although he was less clear on this in a quote that appeared in an AAP article in November 2013, where he stated: “I don’t know if it’s a cull as such – and maybe that means different things to different people”. Overall, of the leading claims-makers identified above, these were mentioned a total of 173 times in the data, including non-specific groups or people such as the ‘tourism industry’ and ‘marine scientists’.
It is important to note some interesting findings from this dataset that were not picked up through the process of coding to the nodes listed above. For example, Premier Colin Barnett was quoted in multiple articles throughout the timeline stating that the government would not consider a cull and was opposed to shark nets because of the associated negative environment impacts. This is interesting to the research because Barnett is the Premier under which the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was implemented, which was arguably a cull with the potential for significant negative environmental ramifications. Furthermore, in October 2011, Fisheries manager Tony Cappelluti was recorded in The Canadian Press as having stated that drum lines placed in the water following an attack were “removed from the water after six hours of fruitless hunting for fear that the tuna bait would attract more sharks to the area”. This is relevant to the research because it suggests that the WA Government believed that drum lining increased the danger to bathers by luring large sharks towards beaches. This argument was also identified in the data collected through the documents discussed in Part 1 of this chapter and is consistent with one of the leading criticisms of the public regarding the WA SHMDLP.
Finally, several articles that were collected through this Factiva search are important to discuss, despite not relating directly to the construction of either SP1 or SP2. In February 2014, Premier Barnett stated in a live blog that he believed the ‘silent majority’ of Western Australians did support the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. While this blog was not collected through Factiva, the statements he made during this session were repeated in several articles. According to a PerthNow (2014) article he stated that he “still believe(s) a silent majority of people believe the government is taking the right decisions, even though they may be unpopular”. This is important to note because it relates to the government’s perception of public opinion about SP1, which will be discussed more in the following chapters.
Chapter 5: Results 183 Social Problem 2 – Pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA
The search terms used to collect this dataset yielded 392 (499 of which 107 were duplicates) articles. This was manually filtered down to 333 which were deemed relevant to how the drum lining program was constructed as a social problem. Examples of articles that were filtered out in this process are those that referred to single ‘catch and kill’ orders following specific shark bite events or articles that only briefly mentioned the policy without contributing to its construction as a social problem.
A total of 71 different newspapers published articles that were picked up in this search. The nine companies responsible for publishing the most articles in relation to SP2 were: Australian Broadcasting Corporation (70), Australian Associated Press (60), The Australian (22), The Sunday Times (17), Western Suburbs Weekly (10), The West Australian (9), Bunbury Mail (8), The Times UK (8) and Freemantle Cockburn Gazette (7). International coverage for SP2 ranged from United Kingdom (20 newspaper outlets), New Zealand (10), United States (5), Canada (3), France (3), South Africa (1), India (1), Indonesia (1), Germany (1), Philippines (1), China (1). This differs from the international attention received for SP1, in which France, the UK and Canada were the leading countries to publish relevant articles. Furthermore, a total of 63 out of 392 articles (16%) were published by local Western Australian newspaper outlets meaning that most of the attention was media received by state and national outlets.
Figure 17 – Newspaper Coverage by Location (SP2)
Chapter 5: Results 184 Of the 333 articles collected in this search, only 321 articles had their content coded to ‘nodes’, as well as ‘cases’ meaning that they played a role in the construction of the social problem. This was significantly less than with SP1, in which 115 of the articles identified in the search were not deemed relevant to the construction of the social problem.
As with SP1, coding for SP2 was structured around the theoretical framework of this research. This meant that nodes were structures around the ‘Claim’ (grounds, warrants, conclusions, rhetoric idioms and rhetorical motifs) and ‘Claims-makers’ components of the theory. The ‘Warrants’ node also drew on the themes identified in the public comments dataset previously discussed.
Findings
Content was coded to the ‘Grounds’ node when numerical figures were used to define the social problem. Unlike SP1, the media did not heavily draw on numbers to define the claim for SP2. Of a total of 15 numerical estimates used to define SP2, six were used to define the problem in terms of financial costs to the taxpayer and nine were used to highlight the number of animals caught on drum lines. It is considered likely that this is because the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was a trial policy and did not operate for long enough to catch enough animals for the numbers to be considered alarming to the audience or useful in constructing the social problem. For example, only 66 sharks were caught during the program’s operation and only 17 were killed.
However, in the construction of SP2, the media was observed to have focused on a different numerical estimate, although one that did not necessarily play a role in defining the claim of drum lining as a social problem. In this dataset, there were 25 figures provided regarding the number of thousands of people involved in protesting drum lining at rallies or through petitions and there were 36 more general mentions of the ‘thousands of people’ opposed to the policy.
The two rhetoric idioms that were identified in this dataset were the Rhetoric of Loss and the Rhetoric of Endangerment. These featured significantly less frequently than in the construction of SP1. Endangerment was used very infrequently (three articles) to refer to the impact that a damaged ecosystem will have on future generations and Loss was identified in ten articles. This was found in quotes such as “I love everything about Australia. The people, the attitude and
Chapter 5: Results 185 especially the wildlife. Please protect your sharks”, “it brings a lot shame and embarrassment and shows how brutal we can be to our marine life” and in other arguments relating to the shame of harming the country’s treasured wildlife.
There were no reoccurring phrases found in this dataset that could be considered rhetorical motifs, but some individual words were used frequently that contributed to the tone of the arguments within the dataset. For example, despite the WA Government’s repeated denial of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 constituting a ‘cull’ on sharks, the term ‘cull’ was identified 1112 times in this dataset. Furthermore, the program was repeatedly labelled as ‘controversial’; a term that was identified 137 times.
The warrants, which are used to justify why an issue has become a social problem, were drawn from the public comments dataset discussed previously. However, the ‘Alternative Recommended’ theme was considered part of the Conclusions component of the theory, rather than a Warrant. Therefore, this included:
• Tourism • Target Animals • Public Opposition • Other • Legal • Ineffective • Errors within the program • Ecosystem • Disagreement with policy justifications • Cost of program • Bycatch • Animal welfare, and; • Animal rights
The leading argument used in the media articles was ‘Public Opposition’, which was identified
Chapter 5: Results 186 in 37% (141) of articles. It is interesting that this was most frequently occurring argument against the use of drum lining in this dataset given that it does not relate to any of the actual harms posed by drum lining. However, it is noted that this finding is consistent with the findings from Part 2 of this chapter, in which overwhelming public opposition to the program was observed. This was followed by ‘Ineffective’ at 26% (98), ‘Bycatch’ at 14% (54) and ‘Disagreement with policy justifications’ at 13% (49). It was noted that concerns relating to the program’s potential for bycatch were most frequently to do with dolphins and turtles, which was consistent with public opinion.
The finding that ‘ineffective’ was the second most used argument here is also consistent with the findings from the EPA Public Submissions data in which, ‘ineffective’ was the most frequently occurring argument after those that were environmentally focused. Interestingly, the two least frequently occurring arguments were ‘Other’, which was made up of arguments about the similarities of the program to Japan’s whaling and the damage to Australia’s international reputation and ‘Tourism’. This is also consistent with the leading themes from the submissions to the EPA discussed earlier in this chapter. The following table illustrates the leading themes identified as Warrants in this dataset.
Figure 18 – Themes Identified in the data (Warrants for SP2)
The ‘Conclusions’ node was coded to when content identified the solution to the social problem
Chapter 5: Results 187 of drum lining. Although it was heavily implied throughout the dataset that the conclusion was to cease drum lining and abandon the trial policy, this was only explicitly argued in 17 articles. However, 76 articles (20% of the dataset) discussed favorable alternative to drum lining. The most frequently suggested alternatives were Research (19), Personal Shark Deterrent Devices (11), Shark Alert Program (10), Shark Barriers (11) or unspecified ‘non-lethal’ alternatives (16). This differed from those featured most frequently in the Public Comments Dataset, where education and non-lethal drum lining, as used in Brazil, were the most frequently occurring alternatives suggested.
There was a significant number of Claims-makers identified in the media dataset for SP2. Claims-makers consisted of several groups including conservation groups and other NGOs, celebrities, politicians, scientists, businesses and those intimately impacted by shark bite incidents. Sea shepherd were the most frequently mentioned claims makers, appearing 116 times across 56 articles (15%). The HSI (14 articles) and the WA Conservation Council (25 articles) were the next most frequently mentioned environmental organisations who contributed to the construction of SP2, followed by Support Our Sharks (4), the Wilderness Society (2), Western Australian’s for Shark Conservation (2), Animals Australia (1) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (1). Overall, these organisations were primarily concerned with the welfare of animals caught on drum lines and Australia’s legal obligations to protect white sharks.
The leading claims-makers in politics were the WA Greens and Labor Party. The Greens party was mentioned 61 times over 21 articles (6%) opposing the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, which was followed by opposition leader Dave Kelly (15). While the Greens were primarily concerned with the environmental impacts of the policy, Kelly heavily criticized the cost of the operation of drum lining, its ineffectiveness, errors within the program and frequently argued in favour of non-lethal alternatives. Other political claims-makers included Liberal MLC Phil Edman who was quoted in the Weekend Courier claiming that “I don’t think killing a few sharks will fix the problem” and called for further use of personal shark deterrent devices and South Australian Minister for the Environment, Leon Bignell, who was concerned about bycatch resulting from drum lining.
Chapter 5: Results 188 Leading celebrity claims-makers were actor/comedian Ricky Gervais (14) and entrepreneur Richard Branson (15). Gervais used animal rights and animal welfare arguments to criticize the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, while Branson believed that the program would harm WA’s tourism industry by drawing attention to a problem that “doesn’t exist” (The New Zealand Herald, 2014). Professional surfer Kelly Slater also condemned the policy arguing that the program was “silly” and it was “crazy” for humans to want to control the natural environment to that extent (The Sunday Times).
Aside from claims made by ‘scientists’ (34), there were ten individual experts mentioned at least twice in this dataset. Christopher Neff, shark hazard mitigation policy expert, was mentioned 37 times in this dataset across 14 articles (4%). Neff’s preliminary arguments opposing the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 was the lack of evidence of the policy’s effectiveness and the WASG’s reactionary response to statistically insignificant events. He also directly challenged the government’s claim that the program was not a cull stating in a December 2010 article that “This is a tool that is used to kill sharks and to reduce populations - that is by definition culling”. Another notable claims-making scientist was Carl Meyer a from the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biologist, who argued in The Sunday Times in February 2014, that the policy was ineffective at enhancing bather safety and that the WASG had tried to re-label the catch-and-kill program as something other than a cull but that the current activities clearly fit the standard dictionary definitions of a cull. Remaining scientists included marine biologists, zoologists and other ‘shark experts’ who mostly contributed to claims that drum lining was ineffective at enhancing bather safety and posed a threat to the environment.
Sharon Burden, mother of Kyle Burden who died from a shark bite incident in 2011 and Rodney Fox, who survived a shark bite incident in 1963 were mentioned in a combined total of 20 articles in this dataset opposing the use of drum lines in WA. Burden joined Sea Shepherd in seeking a judicial review of the State’s exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) to catch white sharks and was vocal about her beliefs that sharks should be protected. Fox argued in favour of alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques.
Chapter 5: Results 189 The remaining claims makers that appeared across at least two articles in this dataset included protest organiser, Natalie Banks, Shark Alarm, a company that sells personal shark deterrents and the WA Shark Fishing Association, who argued that they had not been properly consulted by the WA Government and shark breeding stock would be impacted by drum lining. Overall, leading claims makers were mentioned a total of 460 times in the 378 articles that were identified in this search. This excludes less specific claims making groups, such as ‘conservationists’ (34), ‘environmentalists’ (16), ‘activists’ (60) and ‘protestors’ (7) which were also referred to in a large number of articles. However, it is obvious that in this dataset, the construction of SP2 relied heavily on the use of claims-makers to construct the social problem of drum lining. The first graph below outlines the ten most frequently occurring individual claims makers and the second table illustrates the leading claims-maker by groups. Figure 19 includes the number of articles each claims-maker was mentioned in, while Figure 20 was generated using a text search for the number of total mentions across all articles and includes general terms like ‘activists’ and ‘scientists’.
Figure 19 – Leading Claims-makers (SP2)
Chapter 5: Results 190 Figure 20 – Claims-makers by Groups (SP2)
Another significant finding to the research that was identified through this search but not coded to the nodes. An article published in February 2014 by the Mandurah Mail outlines a Parliamentary Questions session in which Premier Colin Barnett states that it is “obvious” that the drum lines were removed for the Rottnest Channel Swim because they attract sharks which would be unsafe for the swimmers. This session has been discussed in the narrative of Part 1 of this chapter but the evidence of this admission by the Premier in a WA newspaper article may have contributed to the overwhelming perception that drum lines are ineffective as found in the public submission made to the EPA (Part 2 of Chapter 5).
In addition to this, Fisheries Minister Norman Moore is quoted by the ABC in November 2011 as ruling out a ‘shark cull’ in response to shark bite incidents because it is “unlikely to have the desired effect” of enhancing bather safety. While the WA Government continued to deny that their drum lining program was a cull, it is apparent that the overwhelming belief was that the program did constitute a cull, which again, demonstrates the government’s own perception of reducing shark numbers (as with the WA SHMDLP) does not enhance bather safety. Barnett was also quoted by the Australian Associated Press in 2012 arguing that he did not support a ‘cull’, however he did not provide a reason for this.
Chapter 5: Results 191 5.5 CONCLUSION This chapter has outlined the findings from the research methods discussed in the previous chapter. Part 1 provided a narrative of the events surrounding the construction of SP1 and SP2 by examining a range of documents that informed the WASG, leading to their implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and following its cessation. In Part 2, key themes and arguments expressed in public opinion were outlined, which was followed by an analysis of newspaper articles relevant to the construction of both SP1 and SP2, in Part 3. These results have been used to inform the discussion in the following chapter, where a discussion will occur in which the theoretical framework of this research is applied to the findings and compared to the relevant literature.
Chapter 5: Results 192 Chapter 6: Discussion
6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter aims to discuss the findings of this research by using the theoretical framework of this project, particularly the TCMA, to determine how a series of events that occurred in WA between 2010 and 2014 were successfully constructed as two social problems. This chapter will begin with a brief discussion of the overall observations from the data and an analysis of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 as a policy response to shark bite events. This will be followed by a detailed application of the TCMA to the findings discussed in the previous chapter to determine how an increase in the frequency of shark bite incidents in WA between 2010 and 2014 was constructed as a social problem. Following this, the same techniques will be used to determine how pre-emptively killing large sharks in response to increasing shark bite frequency in WA was constructed as a second social problem. Finally, this chapter will compare the differences in claims making styles, types of claims-makers and claims-making processes used in the construction of these two distinct yet overlapping social problems.
6.2 OBSERVATIONS AND POLICY ANALYSIS This research was conducted using a large amount of data from a wide range of sources including local, state and federal government correspondence, newspaper articles and public submissions to local governments, WASG departments and the EPA. The data collected for this research spans a four-year period in which two social problems were constructed in WA. The first social problem was the increasing frequency of shark bite incidents in WA and the second was the WASG’s policy response to this condition, in the form of pre-emptively killing large sharks as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Due to the large time frame covered in this project and large amount of data from a wide range of sources, several shifts in attitudes and contradictions have been observed. Furthermore, the review of the literature in Chapter 2 has allowed for an analysis of the policy. This chapter will begin by discussing the contradictions observed in the data to determine whether the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was able to meet its policy objectives and will follow this with a comparison between how these two social problems were constructed using the TCMA.
Chapter 6: Discussion 193 Policy Objectives
Spector and Kitsuse (2001, p. 76) state that, in examining how a social problem came into existence, it is important for researchers to guard against the tendency to ‘slip back’ into the analysis of a condition and its associated harms (real or otherwise). Indeed, Weinberg (2009, p. 63) supports this by stressing the irrelevance of putative conditions in the field of social problems research, although overall argues for a more ‘middle of the road’ approach to constructionism, than Spector and Kitsuse’s (2001, p. 76) stricter approach. With regards to this research project, it is therefore important that the researcher acknowledges that whether the threat posed by either condition being constructed as a social problem is real or only perceived is irrelevant. Specifically, this means that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of SP1, as a social problem, if the threat posed by sharks to beachgoers and the economy in WA was real, or significant enough to warrant the policy response. Alternatively, it is irrelevant to the construction of SP2 whether the policy posed a real threat to the environment, was effective at achieving its objectives or was harmful in any of the other ways that it was claimed to have been.
Despite this, wide range of data collected for this research has allowed for a basic analysis of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. Again, while it is not necessary to determine the reality of the perceived threats associated with the operation of this program, the shortcomings of this program were regularly cited in the construction of SP2. Therefore, the following section will include a brief analysis of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 to provide insight into how well claims-makers for SP2 were informed in their claims about pre-emptively killing large sharks. In addition, these findings will be linked back to the literature that was reviewed in Chapter 2.
Objective 1
As discussed in Chapter 1, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was a trial program with two main objectives. According to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (2014, p. 13) the primary objective of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was to offer “increased protection to swimmers and surfers by reducing the chance of large, and potentially dangerous sharks entering coastal waters at popular swimming and surfing beaches during periods of highest use”. However, the idea that placing baited drum lines off popular beaches would increase bather safety was frequently
Chapter 6: Discussion 194 contradicted in the data. This was consistent with the review of shark hazard mitigation policies used in other jurisdictions that was discussed in Chapter 2, where it was revealed that drum lining in QLD, KZN and the Hawaiian shark cull were not capable of completely mitigating the risk of bites to bathers, with the Hawaiian cull having negligible impact on bather safety (Shiffman, 2014; Wetherbee et al., 1994).
For example, in a 2011 article published by The Canadian Press, Fisheries Manager Tony Cappelluti stated that drum lines placed in the water following an attack were “removed from the water after six hours of fruitless hunting for fear that the tuna bait would attract more sharks to the area”. This statement referred to a single catch-and-kill order following a fatal shark bite incident, rather than the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This demonstrates that the DF considered drum lines deployed for only six hours likely to attract sharks into the area where they were deployed and therefore decrease bather safety, while the WASG deployed drum lines around the clock, off hundreds of square kilometres of popular coastline for a period of several months and did not consider this likely to increase the number of sharks in the vicinity of bathers. Also in 2011, Fisheries Minister Norman Moore was quoted in an ABC article ruling out a ‘shark cull’ (which this research has proven the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 to be) because it was unlikely to have the desired effect of enhancing bather safety. Finally, following the implementation of the WA SHMDLP in 2014, Premier Barnett was recorded in a Parliamentary session stating that it would be irresponsible for the government not to remove drum lines for the Rottnest Channel Swim because baited hooks would lure sharks towards swimmers. While an examination of the literature and data from the scientific community made it clear that there was an absence of scientific evidence to support drum lining as a way to enhance bather safety and this research also demonstrated the public’s and environmental NGOs’ obvious perception that drum lining would either not enhance bather safety or actually decrease it by luring sharks towards recreational ocean users, it was interesting to find contradictions within the departments responsible for designing the program.
The program was also criticized for the arbitrary length of target specimens of 3m and above, with an analysis of public opinion revealing that sharks over 2m in length were also considered capable of inflicting serious injury to bathers. Furthermore, in announcing the perceived success of the program, Ken Baston stated in a media release that 95 of the non-target specimens were
Chapter 6: Discussion 195 sharks between 2m and 3m in length. This suggested that the government also perceived these sharks to pose some threat to bathers and is consistent with the criticisms that the 3m target specimen length was arbitrary.
The narrative analysis in Part 1 of Chapter 5 alone revealed several key issues with the programs’ effectiveness at meeting this primary objective. Firstly, that the use of large hooks were likely to increase post-release mortality rates, which was not researched by the DPC and meant that there was the potential for more shark carcasses to be floating off popular beaches acting as bait for more sharks to come into the area. It was noted that the lack of research into post-release mortality rates was also a criticism of the program expressed by the public. Secondly, it was revealed that shark presence off popular beaches could also be increased as a result of the WASG’s decision to cut open the stomach contents of dead sharks to aid in decomposition which released a burley-like substance into the water that could also attract more sharks. Additionally, it was argued that distressed sharks on drum lines could vomit up a burley- like substance which could have the same effect and finally, that hooked sharks also acted as bait for even larger sharks which was argued due to the finding of some sharks which had been predated on by larger sharks while caught on drum lines.
The other key findings from the narrative analysis in Chapter 5 which suggest that the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 may not have been effective at achieving its primary objective were the time of year the program operated and the arbitrary choice of target species. It was revealed that the policy operated at a time of year where white shark bite incidents were least likely to occur. Furthermore, the program also targeted tiger and bull sharks which had never been confirmed responsible for a fatality in either of the MMAs. Finally, the CSIRO criticised the policy for lacking measurable goals, meaning that it would have been difficult, if not impossible to determine the success of the program at achieving its objectives. While the scientific community and public criticized the program for not enhancing bather safety and the catch data revealed that the program had not caught any white sharks (the only species confirmed responsible for fatalities in either MMA), the WASG announced in 2014 that the policy had been determined a success and recommended continuation of the drum lining into 2017.
Chapter 6: Discussion 196 Objective 2
The second main objective of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was to operate the drum lining with minimal impact on the marine environment. The DPC stated in their policy review document that ‘adaptions were made to suit the Western Australian marine environment and reduce potential impacts’ (2014, p. 6) and that these were deemed effective at reducing bycatch and interactions with non-target specimens. Some of the measures deemed successful were the use of the 25/0 size hooks, the removal of drum lines prior to whale migration season, placement of hooks at sufficient depth to reduce the risk of interactions with seabirds and daily monitoring of the drum lines.
The data revealed that the program was criticized for the argument that using larger hooks than similar drum lining programs would reduce bycatch. The CSIRO found that the hook size used was still “reasonably effective at taking non-target sized sharks”, which was consistent with the catch data that revealed that of the 172 sharks caught, only 50 were of target size and species. The CSIRO also argued that while the larger hook size may have reduced overall bycatch (although not supported by scientific evidence), it was likely that the overall impact would be greater because injuries from larger hooks were more severe meaning that post-release survivorship rates were likely to be lower (although these were not assessed by the DPC). This was consistent with Sea Shepherds anecdotal account of a shark having a hook removed from its mouth. The public also criticized the hooks used on drum lines, as well as the bait type, for being inappropriate for attracting the most dangerous shark species, which was supported by the absence of white sharks caught during the 2013 – 2014 trial of the WA SHMDLP.
Furthermore, the DPC argued that checking the drum lines for catch throughout the day would reduce the environmental impacts of the program. However, the fact that hooks remained baited and unchecked during the night was criticized by the public and environmental groups for meaning that sharks would be left on hooks for hours, also reducing post-release survivorship rates. The was also some public perception that leaving hooks baited at night would attract scavenger type predators, such as tiger sharks, which would not enhance bather safety (because of a lack of night-time recreational ocean use) and increase the level of impact on a species not considered dangerous.
Chapter 6: Discussion 197 Other observations
The first interesting observation made throughout this research relates to the differences in attitudes between the shark hazard mitigation techniques employed in WA compared to those operating on the east Australian Coast. As mentioned briefly throughout this research, QLD began implementing lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques in 1962 and utilizes a combination of drum lines and gill nets (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006, p. 6). NSW introduced lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques in 1937 and relies exclusively on gill nets. Overall, these shark hazard mitigation techniques represent a significant threat to shark populations, particularly white sharks, with approximately 16 white sharks caught in QLD and NSW per year (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2013a, p. 38).
Gill nets, implemented by both QLD and NSW, are designed to entangle and drown sharks and have a much higher rate of bycatch than drum lines (Neff, 2012). Furthermore, the NSW gill net program targets eight species of shark and frequently catches non-target animals such as turtles and dolphins (Department of Primary Industries NSW, 2015). In this research project, WA Premier Collin Barnett was repeatedly found to have criticized gill nets as a shark hazard mitigation technique for environmental reasons. Comparatively, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 only operated for four months, and failed to catch any white sharks, turtles or dolphins, which were previously identified as the species of most concern. Despite this, there was significantly more criticism of the WA SHMDLP between December 2013 and April 2014, while two programs that posed a greater threat to the environment operated on the opposite side of the country and had done so for multiple decades. This may have been a function of the post- domestic era and the increased media attention given to the WA policy, over the QLD and NSW programs, which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Another explanation for this was discussed in Chapter 2, where Pepin-Neff and Wynter (2018) argued that public awareness of the need to protect vulnerable shark species was relatively new, meaning that these policies were implemented at a time when shark populations were healthier and awareness about the importance of shark conservation was lacking.
The other key contradiction observed in this research, which will be discussed in more detail
Chapter 6: Discussion 198 below, was the frequent denial of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 constituting a shark cull. In 2011, WA Premier Collin Barnett was quoted by multiple media outlets stating that he would consider culling off popular beaches following a fatal shark bite incident. However, he then went on to be quoted in articles by the AAP and The Independent in 2012 stating that the WASG would not consider a cull. When the policy was announced in late 2013, the WASG insisted that the policy did not constitute a cull, while Barnett conceded that he didn’t know if it was a cull and that that term may have different meanings to different people (See Chapter 5). Meanwhile, experts, including Christopher Neff and Carl Meyer (see Chapter 5, Part 3) insisted that the program was a cull, in that aimed to reduce local shark populations, which was consistent with the Macquarie Dictionary’s (2019) definition of a cull. Analysis of public opinion also suggested that the public perceived the program to be a shark cull, with the term ‘cull’ frequently used to describe the program.
Finally, there were significant contradictions made by the WASG regarding their claims of public support for the policy. Premier Colin Barnett argued that the program was supported by the ‘silent majority’ of Western Australians in 2014 (PerthNow, 2014). This claim, while impossible to prove, was not consistent with the public opinion data collected through this research and the media frequently reported public opposition to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 in its coverage of the program. While the data suggested that there was a level of public concern about shark bite incidents and that the public was generally supportive of non-lethal shark hazard mitigation strategies, this research was unable to locate evidence to support Barnett’s claims about a ‘silent majority’ supporting drum lining. In addition, the statements were criticized by the Labor Party who argued that the government had changed its stance on public opinion and had conceded that the policy was unpopular by February 2014. However, this was inconsistent with the WASG’s subsequent arguments in April 2014 that the policy had been successful at reducing bather anxiety about shark bite incidents and recommending its continuation for the following three summers.
Overall, this research revealed that the WASG was unable to prove the success of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 in achieving either of its main objectives. There was inadequate scientific evidence to support the idea that pre-emptively killing large sharks off WA would enhance
Chapter 6: Discussion 199 bather safety and the program’s unlikelihood of achieving this objective was increased through operational measures specific to the program. These included the time of year the program was implemented, the methods used to catch sharks and methods used to dispose of shark carcasses. While it is impossible to measure whether or not bather safety was actually increased during the period of operation for this trial and it was noted that there was no fatalities during this period, the program failed to catch any sharks of the species confirmed responsible for fatal bite incidents in either MMA. Furthermore, while the WASG claimed that the program was successful in having minimal negative impact on the marine environment, reviews of the policy revealed that these claims were unsubstantiated. Finally, it was noted that while there was a level of public anxiety about shark bite incidents in WA, there was no evidence to support the government’s claims that the policy was supported by the majority of the public, and this was consistent with findings from the public opinion and media datasets collected through this research.
Ultimately, the findings from this research project suggest that the WASG was not able to prove that the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 was effective at enhancing bather safety or that it posed a negligible threat to the environment and that the WASG was not operating in the interests of its constituents in implementing the policy. Despite this, there were no shark fatalities during the period of operation and none of the species of most concern were caught during the program, which only operated for several months and had significantly less impact on the marine environment than similar programs in Australia, which were not subject to such intense criticism. The following section of this chapter aims to compare the ways that shark bite incidents and the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 were constructed as social problems in an effort to explain how this series of contradictory events unfolded.
6.3 SOCIAL PROBLEM 1 The first social problem that this research aimed to examine was the increasing frequency of shark bite incidents that occurred off the Western Australia coast between 2010 and 2013. This research used the TCMA to explain how a series of independent events was constructed as a broader social problem that received international attention and led to the policy response that will be discussed later in this chapter. This was done by examining how the claim was constructed, who acted as claims-makers and the claims-making processes that they used and
Chapter 6: Discussion 200 draws on the data discussed in previous chapters to inform the findings.
Western Australia had the third highest rate of shark bite incidents in Australia over the past 30 years (Australian Geographic, 2015). Between August 2010 and November 2013, there were seven shark-related fatalities in WA and a total of 23 unprovoked shark bite incidents. Of the fatalities, four victims were surfing or body boarding, two were diving and one was believed to have been swimming. In the ten years prior to the fatal incident in August 2010, there was a total of 20 unprovoked bite incidents, of which only four were fatal (Shark Attack Data, 2016). In addition, there were only 12 shark bite incidents in the three years following the fatality in November 2013, of which only three were fatal. This represents a statistical increase in shark bite incidents off the WA coastline during the 2010 to 2013 period, for which there is no scientific explanation. The following graph illustrates the increase in bite incidents that this research aims to examine.
Figure 21 – A Timeline of Unprovoked Bite Incidents in WA (2000 – 2016)
According to the TCMA, a claim can be understood by answering four questions. These are: 1) What are claims makers saying about the condition that has been identified as a social problem, 2) What is the rhetoric of the claims-making? 3) How is the claim being typified? And finally; 4)How has a claim been presented by the claims-makers in a way that aims to persuade their audiences of the legitimacy of the problem (Best, 1989)? The following discussion will be divided into two sections. The first will analyse the claim, meaning that it will analyse the how the condition has been framed as a social problem. The second section will investigate who the leading claims-makers were and the processes that they used in constructing their claim.
Chapter 6: Discussion 201 The Claim Grounds The claim for the social problem of increasing shark bite frequency in WA between 2010 and 2013 (SP1) was defined by ‘grounds’. As stated in Chapter 2, grounds typically refer to the definition of the problem, an example of how it is a problem, or a numerical estimate put forward to support the belief that a condition is a social problem (Hannigan, 2014). From examining the data, it appeared that the independent bite incidents began to be defined as a broader social problem in 2011. Following the third fatality in a seven-week period, the media began grouping the events together by describing them as a ‘surge of attacks’ and an ‘unprecedented situation’ (NBC News, 2011). In April 2012, the City of Bunbury and nine other LGs began discussing possible explanations for ‘increases in shark bite frequency’.
Hannigan (2014) states that the grounds of a claim also includes boundaries designed to keep the problem confined to a single focal point for the audience. With regards to SP1, this could refer to the focus on shark bites in WA, specifically, rather than across Australia. As mentioned, WA has the third highest rate of shark bite incidents in Australia over the past 30 years. Furthermore, between August 2010 and November 2013, both New South Wales and South Australia were the location of single shark-related fatalities (Australian Geographic, 2015). However, the discussion for SP1 excludes these interstate incidents, suggesting that ‘location’ was a boundary that has been placed on this social problem.
The grounds for SP1 also includes examples and numerical estimates. Examples are used to make a problem more relatable (Hannigan, 2014), and in the case of SP1, clearly refer to the attention given to the specific incidents of shark bites that were compiled to make the broader problem. It was revealed in Part 3 of Chapter 5 that the number of articles relating to SP1 spiked following each of the fatalities, meaning that each of these were used as examples to highlight the broader problem. Numerical estimates are used to place emphasis on how severe the problem is (Hannigan, 2014). With regards to SP1, numerical estimates were identified frequently in the media’s representation of the problem. In 44% of the articles, SP1 was defined with the use of numbers, specifically, the number of fatalities in a period of time. For example, and consistent with the timeline of the independent events being drawn together as a broader problem, in October 2011, the media began defining the problem as ‘three fatalities in seven weeks’ and then again in July 2012 as ‘five fatalities in ten-months’. While the use of numerical estimates were
Chapter 6: Discussion 202 not identified frequently in the data collected from various government departments or the public, this method of framing the social problem with the use of numbers was identified as the most frequently used ground by the media in the claim for SP1.
Warrants
The next component of a claim is the ‘warrants’ which, as Hannigan (2014) describes, is the justifications used by the claims-makers to persuade the audience of the need for change to occur in order to address the social problem. Put simply, identifying the warrants of a claim means identifying the reasons that the claims-makers say the condition is a problem, or how it harms society. With regards to SP1, there was a range of reasons put forward by claims-makers to justify how increasing shark bite frequency in WA was harming society and needed addressing.
The leading warrant identified in this research was the argument that increasing shark bite frequency in WA constituted a social problem because it was likely to impact the tourism industry in WA and therefore, the economy. This warrant was used heavily by the WASG in applying to the Australian DE for an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) and was the leading warrant used by the media in the construction of SP1. While, Part 1 of Chapter 5 revealed that the Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) did not believe fatal bite incidents were likely to impact local tourism and Tourism WA reports revealed that state tourism generally increased between 2012 and 2014, many government organisations did perceive the increase in bite frequency to pose a threat to the State’s economy. The DE and DPC were found to have used the potential impact on tourism as a warrant for SP1 in seven documents discussed in the Part 1 of Chapter 5, along with the Minister for Tourism, Margaret River Board Riders Club (MRBRC), and City of Busselton who were identified as each having used this argument at least once. Overall, it was revealed that the potential loss of revenue from the tourism industry appeared to be the most frequently relied upon warrant in justifying the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014.
This was consistent with the findings from Part 3 of Chapter 5, in which the potential impact on the tourism industry was also identified as the most frequently used warrant in the media coverage of SP1, with 17% of articles using this warrant. However, it is important to note that
Chapter 6: Discussion 203 this was not identified as a leading warrant in the construction of SP1 in any of the data for public opinion (Part 2, Chapter 5). This suggests that this warrant played a key role in the construction of SP1 and justifying the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, despite the public’s lack of concern with the potential for increased shark bite frequency to negatively impact the economy.
The second most frequently used warrant in the construction for SP1 was the argument that shark populations, specifically white sharks, had increased. It was noted in several documents retrieved from the DPC that they were operating on the assumption that white shark populations had increased (or were at least stable) in their application for an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). Despite the CSIRO arguing that there was no sound evidence to support this assumption, the DPC continued to promote this as a warrant in the construction of SP1. The MRBRC used this warrant in their correspondence with the DF, the DF argued that shark populations had been recovering for two generations and Phil Edman from the WA Liberal Party discussed methods of controlling shark populations, suggesting that he also perceived them to be stable or increasing.
This warrant was used in 15% of the media articles examined in Part 3 of Chapter 5 and relied on anecdotal claims from the fishing industry and the belief that populations had recovered since white sharks became protected to lend credit to the arguments. Unlike the previously discussed warrant, this one did feature in the public opinion datasets examined in Part 2 of Chapter 5. While approximately 0.5% of submissions to the EPA supported drum lining as part of the WA SHMDLP, 38% of these submissions argued that white shark populations had increased and a further 5% of total submissions made to the DF made this claim. While this means that, of the members of the public who did perceive increased bite incidents as a social problem, there was a significant portion that believed populations were increasing, overall, this perception is not representative of the vast majority of the public who either failed to express this concern or actively argued the opposite (that shark populations were declining). Again, it is noted that there is no scientific evidence to support this argument as a warrant for the construction of SP1.
It is noted that the idea that the tourism industry would be negatively impacted by increased shark bite frequency in WA was not consistent with the literature discussed in Chapter 2, which suggested that the public, especially in other countries, perceived sharks favorably. Furthermore,
Chapter 6: Discussion 204 Moore argued that due to his previous experience as Minister for Tourism, he was aware that tourists from the UK were likely to be particularly concerned with the rate of increased bite incidents (ABC, 2012). However, this is inconsistent with Friedrich, Jefferson and Glegg’s (2014, p. 4) study that was discussed in Chapter 2, which found that the public in the UK had overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards sharks.
Concern for human safety was another warrant that was identified in the data. While there were many limitations with the data used to determine the public’s role in the construction of SP1, the data that was located supports the idea that the public did express safety concerns resulting from increased shark bite frequency in WA. This was expressed in two ways; the first of which was the explicitly stated support for the WA SHMDLP due to concern for human life, which amounted to 54% of this data set.
The second, less explicit but more substantial way this was expressed was through the level of support for shark hazard mitigation techniques (other than and including the WA SHMDLP). In the submissions made to the EPA about the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017, 14% of the public opposed to drum lining suggested alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques to the program. While this appears to represent a small group, the fact that this was not the topic of the submissions at all, increases the significance of this finding. Furthermore, 89% of people surveyed by the City of Cockburn expressed support for the Coogee Beach Eco Shark Barrier Trial, further suggesting that there was a level of public concern about shark related hazards.
Part 1 of Chapter 5 of this thesis revealed that the government also expressed concern for human safety. Documents collected from the Department of Commerce (DC), City of Bunbury, Liberal Member Phil Edman, DPC, DF, DE and Labor Party all expressed concern for human safety through discussions of how to mitigate risks to bathers posed by sharks. However, several departments of the WASG and LGs also expressed the belief that bather safety was not the responsibility of the government. Furthermore, the media was not found to have relied on this warrant in its role in the construction of SP1.
Chapter 6: Discussion 205 The final significant warrant used in the construction of SP1 was concern regarding the level of public outcry or fear resulting from shark-related hazards. It is noted that this differs from concern about human safety in that it is irrelevant whether the condition being feared posed a real threat because the concern is about how the public perceives the threat. Public concern was identified as the third most frequently used warrant in the media data collected for this research, with 13% of articles referring to the level of public concern regarding increased shark bite frequency.
Part 1 of Chapter 5 revealed that the WASG, DE and several LGs used this warrant in their role in the construction of SP1. The City of Cockburn, Town of Cottesloe and City of Bunbury all referred to levels of attention increased shark bite incidents were receiving from the public with Cottesloe referring to ‘concern from the public’ and Bunbury considering it a ‘topical issue’. The WASG also expressed concern about public perceptions of safety with statements such as ‘a great deal of community apprehension’ and ‘substantial public concern’ coming from the Premier and DPC, respectively. Furthermore, Fisheries Minister Ken Baston discussed restoring the confidence of beach-goers and the DF considered how a tagging program that alerted beach- goers to sharks in the area might increase public concerns, suggesting that these parties also perceived public perceptions of safety to be of significance in the construction of SP1. Finally, although not a government organization the MRBRC also promoted ‘public anxiety’ around shark bite frequency as a warrant in their petitions to the WASG.
Not surprisingly, concern about the level of public concern regarding increased shark bite frequency did not feature as a significantly used warrant in the public opinion data examined in Chapter 5. While the public did express a level of concern about shark bite frequency, this related to the safety argument discussed previously rather than the public’s concern about their own level of concern.
Conclusions
The ‘conclusions’ component of a claim refers to the solutions put forward by claims-makers regarding how to address the claim or solve the problem that is created by the condition being labelled a social problem (Hannigan, 2014). Conclusions for SP1 refer to the suggestions made by claims-makers for how to address the problem of increased shark bite incidents in WA. An
Chapter 6: Discussion 206 analysis of the data revealed a range of conclusions designed to decrease the risk of shark bite to bathers, with some focused on reducing shark populations and others on protecting bathers from human-shark interactions by modifying human behavior. It is crucial that the conclusions for SP1 be thoroughly examined because SP2, which will be discussed in more detail in the following section of this chapter, was designed in response to the conclusions made by claims-makers for SP1. Through analyzing which claims-makers promoted drum lining as a conclusion, we can understand which claims-makers had significant influence over policy makers in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
An analysis of newspaper articles in Chapter 5 revealed that lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques, such as kill orders, culling, drum lining, gill nets and shark fishing were the leading conclusions promoted by the media. This was followed by recommendations for non-lethal measures, such as increased aerial patrols and research. This differed significantly from the conclusions promoted by the public, who predominantly favored non-lethal strategies. It was revealed across all datasets measuring public opinion that the public overwhelmingly opposed culling and drum lining and where alternatives to the WA SHMDLP were recommended, the three most frequently suggested conclusions were increased education, increased research or the non-lethal drum lining technique used in Recife, Brazil. It was noted that the public favored conclusions that had minimal environmental impact. This was consistent with the literature, where it was revealed that the Australian media tends to frame shark bite incidents as being the fault of sharks, and overwhelmingly recommends punitive approaches against sharks to combat shark related risks (Muter et al., 2013; C. Neff, 2014, p. 117).
Finally, the conclusions identified in Part 1 of Chapter 5 varied greatly depending on the organization. Environmental and scientific organizations like the WA Greens Party, Sea Shepherd and CSIRO all opposed lethal shark hazard mitigation strategies but failed to suggest alternative conclusions. LGs such as the Town of Cottesloe, City of Cockburn, City of Cockburn and City of Greater Geraldton all expressed the idea that bather safety was the responsibility of bathers or suggested non-lethal shark hazard mitigation measures as conclusions. However, the DPC, DE and MRBRC all proposed lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques as a conclusion to dealing with SP1. When conclusions referred to specific species, recommendations were specific to white sharks related hazards across all claims-making groups. Overall, it appears that the
Chapter 6: Discussion 207 media and WASG played leading roles in promoting lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques as possible conclusions for SP1, while the majority of claims-makers preferred non-lethal alternatives.
Rhetoric of Claims-Making
Determining the rhetoric of a claim is necessary to understanding how it has been constructed. The rhetoric of a claim is used to draw upon the morals of a society, or the audience of a claim to convince them that the condition being constructed as a social problem impedes upon their morals in some way (Ibarra and Kitsuse, 1993). The rhetorics of loss, entitlement and endangerment have all been identified with regards to the construction of SP1. The rhetoric of loss is used to persuade audiences that a condition is responsible for a loss of culture, nature or innocence and was identified in two of the datasets for this research. The DC and the DE both referred to the need to address the increase in shark bite frequency off WA because of the impact it was having on Australia’s ‘beach culture’. The media also drew upon the rhetoric of loss to frame increased shark bite frequency as threatening to Australian culture. This was mostly done by discussing community events that had been cancelled due to shark-related hazards and anecdotal statements from within the surfing community about surfers giving up their past time due to fears of shark bite.
The rhetoric of endangerment was also used by the government and media in framing SP1. As stated in Chapter 2, the rhetoric of endangerment is used to invoke image clusters that persuade an audience that a condition poses a real threat to individuals within a society (Ibarra and Kitsuse 1993). In particular, the media used this rhetoric as a strategy to draw attention to the topic through fear provoking headlines like ‘What lurks beneath’, discussions about ‘man-eaters’, ‘rogue sharks’ or gruesome recounts of shark bite incidents. While this accounted for the most frequently used rhetoric by the media, with 86 articles relying on it to frame the issue, neither the government nor public were found to have used this rhetoric to frame the issue of increased shark bite frequency in WA.
Finally, the rhetoric of entitlement is used to frame issues where claims-makers aim to convince an audience that their rights and values are being impeded upon by the condition that they hope
Chapter 6: Discussion 208
to construct as a social problem (Ibarra and Kitsuse, 1993). While the use of this rhetoric did not play a significant role in the construction of SP1, it was identified in the media data set in approximately 2% of articles. This was mostly done by vocal claims-makers arguing that people have the right to enjoy recreational ocean use and will be discussed in more detail below.
Typology of the problem
Claims are also typified in different ways, which can help them to gain traction with an audience (Best 1995, 19). An analysis of the data collected for this research suggests that the problem was primarily typified using the melodramatic model, which is consistent with the rhetoric that was discussed above. The melodramatic model is used to frame a condition in terms of victims and heroes and uses emotions to fuel the construction of a social problem (Best 1995, 19). The media played a significant role in typifying SP1 using the melodramatic model through the use of emotive phrases like those used for the rhetoric of loss, endangerment and entitlement. Sharks were posed as predators preying on human victims by the media with calls to the government to cull sharks to protect beach goers, despite the significant amounts of scientific evidence that suggests sharks do not deliberately hunt humans. As stated in Chapter 2, the media play a significant role in eliciting emotions in their audience through the sensationalized coverage of issues (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977), which is consistent with the findings from this research.
The government and stakeholders which informed them also appeared to have typified this issue using the melodramatic model. Fisheries Minister Ken Baston referred to the ‘constant fear of shark attack’, the DF and MRBRC considered the ‘fear in public’ and ‘public anxiety’ surrounding increased bite frequency, respectively. This was consistent with the literature, which revealed that the words ‘shark’ and ‘attack’ when put together, are still some of the most fear laden, emotionally provocative words in the western world (Neff & Hueter, 2013, p. 65). While the WASG also appeared to make an effort to typify the problem using a more scientific model through their consideration of scientific research and statistics, overall, the construction of SP1 was consistent with having been typified using the melodramatic model.
Chapter 6: Discussion 209 Motifs
‘Rhetorical motifs’ refer to the deliberate reoccurrence and repetitive use of particular expressions of language designed to invoke feelings of moral significance to a particular aspect of the condition (Hannigan, 2014). This research revealed the use of this technique on behalf of the media with regards to the construction of SP1. As discussed in Part 3 of Chapter 6, six rhetorical motifs were identified in the newspaper dataset, with ‘shark attack’ being used as a rhetorical motif to describe shark bite incidents in 95% of the data. In Chapter 2 it was revealed that ‘shark attack’ is recognized as a sensationalist term preferred by the media, although it is not always representative of true shark bite incidents towards people and can be used to describe events where a human and shark have not even made physical contact (Neff & Hueter, 2013, p. 65).
‘Deadliest place in the world’ and ‘shark attack capital’ featured second and third most frequently and in nearly 20% of the articles between them. As stated previously, boundaries are used in defining a claim to focus the audience’s attention to a specific issue (Hannigan, 2014). It is noted that both of these motifs also relate to the ‘boundaries’ used in the grounds component of this claim, in that they focus the audience’s attention to increased shark bite frequency in WA specifically. This is also the case for the rhetorical motif that labelled WA as a ‘shark attack hotspot’. The remaining two motifs that were identified in this research, ‘rogue shark’ and ‘killer shark’, are also intended to evoke fear in the audience and draw attention to the issue. These motifs are consistent with both the rhetoric of endangerment and the melodramatic model that were discussed above. It was noted that no rhetorical motifs were identified in any of the other data sets collected for this research.
Claims makers and claims-making processes
In this part of this chapter, the key claims-makers and the processes that they used to construct the claim will be examined. Claims-makers are the groups of people who are putting forward an argument that a specific condition constitutes a threat to society. Because claims-making can be difficult work, claims-makers tend to be people or parties with a significant interest in the issue and with something to gain from a solution (Best, 1995, p. 92). With regards to SP1, claims- makers were the individuals, groups or organisations responsible for arguing that increased shark
Chapter 6: Discussion 210 bite frequency in WA was social problem, rather than series of isolated events. When analyzing the key claims-makers in the construction of a social problem, it is necessary to determine if they have vested interests, how experienced they are at claims-making, whether they represent third parties and what type of claims-makers they are (Best, 1989).
Claims-making processes refer to the techniques used to present a claim to its intended audience, including how it is styled to appeal to that audience and how it is presented. According to Best (1989), researchers of claims-makers must determine who the target audience of the claims- makers was, whether the claim had to compete with any rival claims, what relevance the identity of the claims-makers had to the way the audience received the claim and how the audience shaped the claim.
An analysis of the data suggests that with regards to SP1, the public did not act as key claims- makers. It was evident that there was a level of public concern about increasing shark bite incidents in WA and other claims-makers actively drew on public concern as a warrant for SP1. However, no data was able to be located through the process of this research that suggested that the public actively campaigned as claims-makers to have the problem addressed. Instead, it appears that the public may have acted as an audience that the claims-makers aimed to persuade. This was consistent with the literature, which revealed that shark bite incidents may not provoke negative feelings towards sharks from the public (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547).
The media played a significant role in the construction of SP1. There was significant media coverage of the topic of increased shark bite frequency in WA beginning as early as October 2011. As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the media relied heavily on the use of emotive language and sensationalist coverage of shark bite incidents to construct the condition as a threat to WA beach culture, tourism and human lives through the use of claims-making tools. This is consistent with Best’s (1995, p. 19) argument that the media rely on the use of dramatic examples to gain the attention of an audience. This suggests that the media may have acted as claims-makers in the construction of SP1 and is consistent with Hannigan’s (2014) findings which suggest that the media has a vested interest in constantly detecting and discussing emerging issues. The media represent an experienced group of claims-makers and they act on behalf of their own interests to make sales and draw business through sensationalized news
Chapter 6: Discussion 211 coverage. However, while the media act as a claims-making group for their own interests, they are often utilized by other claims-makers in an effort to reach a wider audience. As discussed in Chapter 2, other claims-makers can circulate their claim more widely when they are able to successfully persuade the media that a topic is news-worthy (Best, 1995).
It is also interesting to note that the media was criticized by National Party Member Dave Grills for going into a ‘frothing frenzy’ over shark bite incidents while ignoring conditions that statistically posed a much higher threat to WA residents than shark bites but were less news- worthy, such as family violence. The graph below is illustrative of the media’s focus on the issue, with each peak representing at least one fatality. It is noted that the media’s attention on this issue and their role in constructing SP1 declined significantly following the announcement of the WASHMDLP in December 2013.
Figure 14 – Number of Articles per Month (SP1)
The data discussed in Parts 1 and 3 of Chapter 5 of this thesis revealed several other key claims- makers. Part 1 revealed that neither LGs, the WASG or Australian Government began actively discussing shark hazard mitigation strategies as conclusions for SP1 until April 2012. However, members within the WASG were reported claims-making in the media as early as October 2011, following the third fatality in a period of two months. Both Minister for Fisheries Norman Moore and Premier Colin Barnett responded to the fatalities in the media by stating that the government planned to address the increase in bite incidents. Furthermore, staff from within the DF were also reported in the media to have contributed to the construction of SP1 at this time, leading to the
Chapter 6: Discussion 212 most frequently used rhetoric motif that WA was ‘the deadliest place on earth’.
While neither the Minister for Fisheries nor DF was found to have actively played a role in claims-making with regards to SP1 in the documents collected for Part 1 of Chapter 5, Moore remained vocal about the increase in bite incidents in the media. Particularly, Moore expressed ongoing concern about the impact that SP1 would have on state tourism and repeatedly drew on his previous experience and Minister for Tourism to support his claims. This might suggest that Moore was representing the third-party interests of the tourism industry in his claims.
It was not until April 2012, that ten LGs discussed increasing shark bite frequency, demonstrating the beginning of their perception of increased shark bite frequency as a broader social problem that needed addressing. This was followed by the Town of Cottesloe, City of Joondalup and the City of Cockburn discussing shark hazard mitigation with the WASG. It was found that LGs predominantly made claims to the WASG regarding their concern about SP1 and this mostly occurred between April 2012 and December 2013, up until the announcement of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. Furthermore, the Busselton Shire President was quoted in several media articles claims-making about SP1 and demanding policy action from the WASG.
This suggests that LGs in WA acted as claims-makers to the audience of the WASG and made their claim both directly and through the media. An analysis of the interests of LGs revealed that the Cities of Bunbury and Busselton were the only LGs that expressed concern about the impact of SP1 on tourism, while the RIA, City of Rockingham, Town of Cottesloe, City of Exmouth and City of Bunbury all expressed awareness about the level of media interest in the topic. Furthermore, Cockburn, Cottesloe and Bunbury all acknowledged SP1 as a topic of community concern. Therefore, it appears that these LGs had a vested interest in representing the constituents of the communities they were elected to represent, both in terms of community perceptions of safety and through the protection of the tourism industry that contributed to local economies. While the Busselton Shire President took the unusual step of claims-making to the media, overall claims-makers from LGs are representative of the official type of claims-maker. Best (1995, p. 93) states that official claims-makers refer to those in official positions making claims from within governments, which is consistent with the findings here.
Chapter 6: Discussion 213 Another vocal claims-making group that contributed to the construction of SP1 was the MRBRC, who campaigned for a policy response to SP1 both directly to the WASG and through the media. The Club relied on all the leading warrants for SP1 in their claims-making such as that white shark populations were increasing, there was public anxiety about the increased bite frequency and that it would negatively impact the tourism industry. The Club claimed that the government had a duty of care to its constituents and commented that they hoped it would not take the death of a women or child for the government to address the problem. The MRBRC called for the redefinition of ‘imminent danger’ regarding shark hazards and specifically called for a state cull of white sharks 3m. It is noted that the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, which sought to pre- emptively reduce shark populations by removing individuals greater than 3m in length and relied on a shift in the definition of ‘imminent threat’ was announced four days following the MRBRC’s letter to the WASG. This suggests that the MRBRC were successful in their claims- making to the WASG.
It is difficult to determine the type of claims-makers that the MRBRC represents because it appears that they had strong influence over the government given the timing of their letter to the DF and the announcement of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014 and the similarities between their letter and the program. This is consistent with Best’s (1995, p. 93) description of pressure groups which argues that pressure groups maintain strong influence over the government and their claims-making usually takes place in private. However, unlike usual pressure groups, they also made their campaigns through the media, rather than exclusively out of the public eye. This is more consistent with the activist type of claims-makers, which Best (1995, p. 93) states are usually people or groups with significant public profile. Furthermore, by using arguments about the government’s ‘duty of care’ to protect WA residents and rejecting scientific arguments about shark population health, it can be determined that the MRBRC fashioned their claim using a legalistic style to appeal to their audience of the WASG. The DPC frequently cited the impact of SP1 on tourism as a justification for the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and, as mentioned previously, several LGs also expressed this concern. However, there was no evidence collected through this research that suggested a significant amount of claims-making on behalf of the industry itself. There were three local tourism businesses who actively participated as claims- makers through the media and, as mentioned, the MRBRC also expressed this concern.
Chapter 6: Discussion 214 However, Tourism WA reports indicated that State-wide tourism did not suffer as a result of SP1 and neither Tourism WA or the DF had any hard evidence suggesting that there was a call for this from the tourism industry other than several anecdotal, verbally conveyed statements (see Appendix 1).
This suggests that there may have been a perception that the tourism industry would suffer as a result of SP1 or that the tourism industry actively campaigned for policy change outside of the media and evidence of this was not located through this research and the applications to the government under the FOI Act 1999 (Cth). As there was significant attention given to the impact of increased shark bite frequency on WA tourism, it appears to have been the case that the tourism industry successfully acted as a pressure group in making a claim to the WASG, however, this cannot be proven by this research.
Following the campaigns made by the claims-makers discussed so far, there was a shift in the claims-makers in the construction of SP1 that lead to the introduction of the WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 as a conclusion to the problem. An analysis of the data suggests that once the LGs, media, tourism industry and MRBRC had successfully made their claim to the WASG, the DPC began making the claim to the DE in order to be granted exemption to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). During this period, the type of claims-makers that the DPC represented were official claims- makers, meaning that the claims were made from within the government.
The narrative analysis in Chapter 5 revealed that following the announcement of the program on 10 December 2013, the claims about SP1 almost completely ceased from other claims-makers, while the DPC began actively claims-making to the DE. Following the announcement, the DE and DPC discussed the claim and how the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 provided a legitimate conclusion to the problem. These Departments relied heavily on the warrants relating to tourism and impact on economy in their justifications for granting the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) exemption. This is consistent with the previous discussion which suggests that the tourism industry may have acted as key claims-makers.
Chapter 6: Discussion 215 Finally, while Premier Colin Barnett was vocal about his concern regarding SP1 and he and the DPC were ultimately responsible for the implementation of the policy intended to resolve SP1, it is noted that he did not play a significant role as a claims-maker in SP1. He was found to have made the claims about SP1 to the media beginning as early as October 2011, but most of his comments to the media were in opposition shark culls and the introduction of gill nets. It appears that his overwhelming role in the construction of SP1 was as a target audience.
Overall, it appeared that the claims-making for SP1 was initiated by the media and LGs following the string of bite incidents in late 2011. LGs represent official claims-makers, who campaigned to the state government for a conclusion to the problem of increased bite frequency in WA due to concerns about the impact on tourism and public perceptions of safety. The media played a significant role in claims-making, representing both their own interests and the interests of LGs, the tourism industry and community groups such as the MRBRC. The media focus on the topic also became a topical issue with LGs and the WASG in discussing solutions for addressing SP1. Following the successful claims-making on behalf of these groups to the WASG, the DPC shifted from the audience of the claim to an active claims-maker in their campaigning to the DE for an exemption to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) which allowed the operation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. It was found that the intended audiences in the construction of SP1 were the public and the state and federal governments and that both audiences were successfully persuaded of the claims given the government’s policy response and the significant level of public concern for SP1.
6.4 SOCIAL PROBLEM 2 In response to SP1, the DPC implemented WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. The DPC (2014) stated that this was a trial program that sought to reduce the risk to bathers posed by sharks by pre- emptively reducing the number of large sharks in the vicinity of popular beaches during the period of peak ocean use in 2014. This program was highly controversial and became subject of multiple public protests and petitions and significant news coverage and due to the amount of negative attention this policy received, this research argues that it was successfully constructed as a social problem. Therefore, the pre-emptive killing of sharks that occurred off the WA coastline from January to April of 2014 as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 is referred to as SP2. Similarly to the previous section of this chapter, this section is divided into two sections
Chapter 6: Discussion 216 to allow for an examination of how this condition was constructed as a social problem. The first half will discuss the claim and how it was constructed through the use of claims-making tools and the second will investigate who the claims-makers were and the processes that they used to persuade their audiences of the claim.
Claim Grounds
The claim for SP2 was defined by ‘grounds’, which refers to the definition of the problem, an example of how it is a problem, or a numerical estimate put forward to support the belief that a condition is a social problem (Hannigan, 2014). By examining the data, it appears that SP2 began to be constructed as a social problem at approximately the same time as the announcement of the program. While Figure 22 below demonstrates that there was some media attention given to single kill-orders following shark bite incidents between 2010 and 2013, it is clear that the problem of pre-emptively catching and killing sharks in response to bite incidents gained momentum in December 2010 when the policy was announced.
22 – Number of Articles per Month (SP2)
The definition of SP2, as a condition that causes harm to society, is complex and does not necessarily align with the exact specifications of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014. For example, prior to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 being announced, the media began defining the problem of a ‘shark cull’ as ‘over-emotional and pointless’ (AAP 2013). And, while the policy is regularly referred to as a cull by the media and public, the WASG insisted through the duration of the construction of SP2 that it did not constitute a cull. It is noted that a ‘cull’ is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary (2019) as the act of killing animals with the view of controlling numbers,
Chapter 6: Discussion 217 which is consistent with the stated goals of this policy. Furthermore, the policy was primarily defined by the environmental organisations, the scientific community and the public as a condition which posed a threat to the environment and by legal organisations as a condition which breached laws designed to protect white sharks.
Similarly to SP1, there were geographic boundaries placed on SP2. As stated in Chapter 1, lethal shark control programs have operated off the east coast of Australia for several decades. However, SP2 was specifically concerned with the introduction of lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques in WA. In addition, numerical estimates were used as grounds to define SP2. These were primarily identified in the media dataset for this research and referred to the numbers of sharks captured on drum lines, the cost of the program to taxpayers and the number of people attending protests and signing petitions against the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. However, it was noted that the technique of using numerical estimates to define the problem was used significantly less in the construction of SP2, compared to SP1, with less than 10% of articles defining the problem through numerical estimates. This could result from several factors. For example, the trial only operated for a period of several months, failed to catch any white sharks (the species of most concern which will be discussed in more detail below) and only resulted in the recorded deaths of 68 animals, which may not have been considered an alarmingly high number by the media. Furthermore, an analysis of public opinion revealed that the cost of operating the program was not a primary concern of the public in their opposition to the WA SHMDLP, which might also explain the media’s infrequent use of numerical estimates to define SP1.
Only several examples were used as grounds to define SP2, most of which related to the public rallies that occurred in WA and attracted thousands of people. Other examples include incidents where the DF or independent fishing contractors were accused of breaching policy guidelines. For example, when the WA Greens Party and the media reported the capture of a baby dolphin in February of 2014 as an example of the program’s potential for bycatch and when a tiger shark was misidentified as a bull shark as an example of the flaws within the program. Both of these examples were discussed by the public, the media and within the government.
Chapter 6: Discussion 218 Warrants
The next component of this claim that will be examined is the warrants, which are the reasons that claims-makers use to persuade their audiences that the condition must be addressed, or that the grounds warrant a conclusion (Hannigan 2014). The warrants used to construct SP2 were significantly more complex than those used to construct SP1 and can be divided into several broader categories: environmental concerns, legal concerns, policy flaws, financial costs and public opposition.
The idea that the pre-emptive killing of large sharks in WA as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 was a problem because it negatively impacted the environment was a leading warrant identified in this research. This was expressed in several ways, including concerns for: the level of bycatch, targeting white sharks as an endangered species, the ecosystem as a result of removing apex predators or concerns for other target specimens (tiger and bull sharks). Part 1 of Chapter 5 revealed that environmental concerns were expressed by the WA Greens Party, Town of Cottesloe, CSIRO, NSW Environmental Defender’s Office, Cockburn City residents, the WA Labor Party, Humane Society International and Animal Defender’s Office (ADO). An analysis of the public opinion data revealed that environmental impacts also represented the overwhelming majority of concerns held by the public. However, none of the individual environmental concerns listed above featured as the most frequently used warrant in the media, with concerns for levels of bycatch being the most frequently identified environmental warrant in this dataset, used in 17% of the articles collected. While each of these concerns relate to the environment, more broadly, it is important analyse them separately because, as discussed in Chapter 2, concern for animals and the environment is complex.
Ecosystem
Firstly, Chapter 2 revealed that large predatory sharks play an important role in maintaining a healthy functioning ecosystem (Ferretti et al., 2010, p. 1057; Last and Stevens, 2009, p. 5). It was revealed that concern for the ecosystem resulting from removing large predatory sharks was the leading concern expressed by the public with 60% of public submissions to the EPA drawing on this warrant to support the claim that SP2 was a condition that posed a threat to society. While Spector and Kitsuse (2001, p. 76) stress that the construction of a social problem through the
Chapter 6: Discussion 219 TCMA is not relevant to whether a condition poses any real threat to society, Chapter 5 revealed that overall, the public did demonstrate a sound understanding of the role of large sharks in maintaining ecosystem health. This also relates to how SP2 was typified, which will be discussed in more detail below.
White sharks
The impact that the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 could have on white shark population health was also a frequently expressed concern in the construction of SP2. White sharks were the primary focus in the construction of both SP1 and SP2 for several reasons, particularly that they were the considered the most dangerous species of shark and they were federally protected meaning that the DPC needed to be granted an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) in order to implement the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The WA Greens, WA Labor Party, CSIRO, and CMS Secretariat all campaigned to the WASG in opposition to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 about their specific concerns for white sharks, with very little concern expressed about the impact that the program would have on other target species. In addition, concern for target animals was the second most frequently used warrant in the public data with a total of 2641 submissions to the EPA expressing concern specific to this species due to its classification as endangered or vulnerable or its risk of becoming extinct. However, species specific concern for white sharks did not feature as a leading warrant in the media, with less than 10% of articles mentioning the conservation status of this species.
Chapter 2 revealed that people tend to place greater value in some animals over others and this can be explained by new-speciesism. New-speciesism refers to the belief that some animals are more deserving of rights or are perceived as having greater value than others based on a variety of reasons, including their genetic closeness to humans or status as an endangered species (Jacobs, 2005, p. 444). With regards to the construction of SP2, an analysis of the data has revealed that there was an increased level of concern for the impact of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 on white sharks over other target species, which would be consistent new-speciesism given that they were the only target species classified as endangered.
Chapter 6: Discussion 220 Bycatch
New-speciesism can also be used to explain the significant level of concern about the policy’s potential for bycatch that was identified as a leading warrant used by the media, public and in the data discussed in the Part 1 of Chapter 5 of this thesis. In the Coogee Beach Shark Exclusion Zone Feasibility Study, it was anticipated that the mortality of marine creatures as a consequence of shark hazard mitigation techniques was likely to engender public criticism, with the highest level of concern expected to relate to the deaths of fairy penguins, sea lions, dolphins and turtles. Concerns relating to the program’s potential impact on dolphins were also expressed by the HSI, DE, WA Greens Party and WA Labor Party and they were identified as the animal of greatest concern in both the media and public datasets.
As mentioned, new-speciesists tend to perceive animals more closely related to humans as having increased value over distant relatives (Moore, 2013, p. 12). Therefore, the increased concern for dolphins, as a mammal, might be explained by this theory. However, analysis of the data revealed that turtles were also the subject of significant concern in the data. While dolphins are genetically closer to humans than other animals potentially impacted by the program, and both they and white sharks are identified as leading charismatic species (Albert & Courchamp, 2018), it is unknown why such a high level of concern was expressed for turtles in the construction of SP2. Nonetheless, the WA SHMDLP’s 2013 - 2014 capacity for bycatch was frequently used by claims-makers as a warrant in the construction of SP2.
Other target animals
Despite the increased level of concern for white sharks, over tiger and bull sharks in the construction of SP2, there was a significant level of concern expressed by the public for other target species and sharks more generally. This level of concern can be explained by post- domesticity theory. Bulliet (2005, p. 3) argues that Australia is at the forefront of the post- domestic era which has resulted in an increased level of sensitivity to harm caused to wild animals. Therefore, the level of concern expressed for sharks more generally, and species that are not endangered may be a result of the post-domestic era in which this social problem was constructed. Furthermore, this might also aid in explaining why the shark hazard mitigation techniques that have been used off the east coast of Australia since the 1930s received less public
Chapter 6: Discussion 221 scrutiny, as this period was not representative of post-domestic culture.
Ethical concerns
Post-domesticity theory can also be used to explain the level of concern for animal welfare that was identified in Parts 2 and 3 of Chapter 5. According to this theory, modern Western cultures consider the hunting, trapping or slaughter of wild animals to be cruel, unnecessary, primitive or barbaric (Bulliet, 2005, p. 20). This was reflected in the data with ‘cruel’, ‘barbaric’, ‘inhumane’, ‘butchered’ and ‘tortured’ all featuring as terms used to describe the way in which the WA SHMDLP destroyed sharks. Therefore, post-domesticity theory can also offer an explanation for how the impact on animal welfare was also used as a warrant in the construction of SP2.
Furthermore, while the warrant that SP2 posed a threat to society by impacting on the rights of animals was not identified in Part 1 of Chapter 5, it was used by the media and the public. As stated in Chapter 2, humans have paid increasing attention to the moral positioning of wild animals in recent decades and have tended to adopt a non-intervention approach towards dealing with them (Norton, 1995, p. 105; Verhoog, 1999). As the WA SHMDLP does not align with the non-intervention approach, this may explain the use of the warrant in the construction of SP2, in that it was perceived that wild animals have their own intrinsic value and breaching their rights would negatively impact society.
Effectiveness
The second most frequently used warrant in the opposition of the WA SHMDLP and construction of it as a social problem was the idea that it was not effective at enhancing bather safety, or actually increased the risk to bathers. This warrant was expressed in several ways including the idea that it was implemented at a time of year unlikely to catch the most dangerous species of shark, that similar programs had not increased bather safety, that baiting drum lines off popular beaches could lure sharks to the area and that the increase in shark corpses floating off popular beaches would increase shark presence near bathers. The WA Greens Party, WA Labor Party, ADO, Sea Shepherd, CSIRO and Town of Cottesloe were all identified using this warrant in their claims for SP2.
Chapter 6: Discussion 222
Furthermore, the DE themselves stated in January 2014 that the program was unlikely to catch white sharks (the most dangerous species) due to the time of year it was implemented, suggesting that even the department responsible for allowing the WA SHMDLP realized it had a reduced capacity to enhance bather safety. In addition, Premier Barnett conceded that sharks would be lured towards drum lines in February 2014. This warrant was the second most frequently used argument by the media in the construction of SP2, featuring in 26% of articles relevant to the construction this social problem. This was also the second most frequently used warrant, after those falling into the ‘environmental concerns’ category, expressed by the public with approximately 26% of the public relying on it in making their claim. Overall, concerns that the WA SHMDLP was either not effective at enhancing bather safety or increased the likelihood of shark bites was a significant concern identified in all of the data collected in this research.
Public opposition
The perception that the WA SHMDLP was in opposition to public interest also appeared as a leading warrant in this research. This argument was the most frequently used warrant by the media in their role in the construction of SP2 and was also recognized as a problem by the City of Cockburn, DPC, the CMS Secretariat, WA Labor Party members, WA Greens Party and OEPA. This warrant differs from the other warrants in that it does not relate directly to drum lining, but rather is the argument that the social problem is the government’s failure to represent public interests. While this argument was not frequently made in the public submissions, the overwhelming lack of support for the WA SHMDLP supports the use of this argument on behalf of the media and other agencies listed above.
Errors within program
Another warrant that was identified in the data was the idea that there were errors within the actual WA SHMDLP itself. As discussed in previous chapters, there was a significant number of criticisms of the specifications within the program. For example, some of the most frequently cited criticisms include the large hooks size, baiting drum lines over-night, choice of target species and arbitrary 3m target specimen length. It was argued that the WA SHMDLP posed a
Chapter 6: Discussion 223 threat to society through being a poorly designed policy that would have a negative impact on the environment and animal welfare due to its flaws. This warrant was identified in the narrative analysis of Chapter 5 with the WA Labor Party, WA Greens Party, Sea Shepherd, CSIRO and Town of Cottesloe all criticizing the WASG for various errors within the program. Furthermore, the media claimed there were errors within the program in approximately 14% of articles and there were 18 different criticisms of the program represented in approximately 13% of the public opinion data.
The idea that the WA SHMDLP was in breach of federal and international laws was also a warrant frequently identified in the construction of SP2. The United Nations Environmental Programme and the CMS Secretariat both criticized the DE for providing a legal exemption to the DPC from laws designed to protect white sharks. In addition, both the public and the media used the legal warrant in their opposition to the policy, although this only featured in just under 15% for both of these claims-making groups.
Costs
Claims-makers also argued that the WA SHMDLP was detrimental to society for financial reasons, making this another warrant identified in the construction of SP2. This warrant was used occasionally by the public, Richard Branson through the media and the WA Greens Party Member Lynn MacLaren and was expressed in two ways. Firstly, it was argued that the operational costs associated with running the WA SHMDLP were harmful to society. Secondly, it was argued that the problem would decrease tourism revenue by deterring tourists who were environmentally minded or having the opposite effect from its stated goals by making tourists perceive the risk of shark bite to be greater than it was. An article published by the ABC in 2010 made this argument, stating that the “International media jumps on the bandwagon, simply compounding the notion to the rest of the world that Australia is full of scary and deadly creatures” (ABC, 2010). However, cost related concerns did not play a significant role in SP2’s construction, featuring among the least frequently used warrant in all datasets in the construction of the pre-emptive killing of large sharks as a social problem. This was unsurprising given that the review of the literature revealed that the program had similar operational costs to the annual costs of the QLD and NSW program, but unlike these ongoing programs, only operated for one
Chapter 6: Discussion 224 year, greatly reducing the overall financial impacts.
An analysis of the data revealed that environmental concerns, in their various forms were the leading warrants used in the construction of SP2, followed by concerns about Program flaws and effectiveness, legal, ethical and financial concerns. The different values attributed to the various species that were likely to be impacted by the WA SHMDLP can largely be explained by post- domesticity theory and new-speciesism, except for the significant concern expressed for the program’s potential for sea turtle bycatch. It is noted that while statistics were not collected for the qualitative narrative analysis discussed in the Part 1 of Chapter 5, the media and public data closely aligned with similar representations of the use of warrants for both the effectiveness of the program and errors within the program. Overall, it appeared that claims-makers predominantly relied on the argument that the WA SHMDLP was harmful to society because it would negatively impact the environment.
Conclusions
Conclusions are used by claims-makers to provide a solution to the condition that is being constructed as a social problem (Hannigan, 2014). Conclusions for SP2 differed based on the warrant that was used to justify how the pre-emptive killing of large sharks posed a threat to society. For example, claims-makers who argued that the WA SHMDLP was a social problem because it posed a threat to the environment proposed the program be abandoned as a conclusion. Alternatively, claims-makers who suggested that the program was problematic due to errors with how it operated proposed changes to the program as conclusions for how it could overcome these errors and minimize the threat it posed.
While it was only occasionally explicitly stated in the media that the program should be abandoned, a larger portion of newspaper articles recommended non-lethal alternatives to shark hazard mitigation. This was similar to public opinion and the data discussed in the Part 1 of Chapter 5, in that claims-makers frequently expressed a desire for non-lethal alternatives to be used instead of the pre-emptive killing of large sharks off popular beaches. The leading conclusion identified in the media was the call for more research into shark populations and behaviours and the public’s most frequently used conclusion was for the WASG to implement non-lethal drum lining, similar to the program used in Recife, Brazil. The finding that
Chapter 6: Discussion 225 alternatives were so frequently suggested is consistent with the findings of the previous section of this chapter, that there was a level of public concern about shark related dangers. Furthermore, the frequent recommendations of non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques as a conclusion for SP2 is consistent with the leading warrant that was discussed above, in that claims-makers were primarily concerned with the potential environmental impacts of the WA SHMDLP.
Rhetoric of claims-making
Claims-makers use rhetoric to frame a claim and remind the audience that there is a moral component to the condition that they argue poses a threat to society (Ibarra & Kitsuse, 1993). Ibarra and Kitsuse (1993) argue that claims-makers can draw on one or more of five different rhetorics, including the rhetoric of loss, endangerment, entitlement, unreason and calamity. To understand how SP2 was constructed as a social problem, it is necessary that the rhetoric of the claim be examined.
Claims-makers relied primarily on the rhetoric of entitlement in the construction of SP2. However, unlike most claims about entitlement, this related to the rights of sharks and marine animals to life, rather than the rights of the people making the claims. This was seen in all the datasets by many claims-making groups and while it did not feature heavily in the media, it was identified in approximately 15% of public opinion. The media relied heavily on the rhetoric of loss to frame SP2. This was identified in articles where it was argued that Australian culture was characterized by its appreciation for wildlife and this would be lost through the pre-emptive killing of large predatory sharks. The use of words like ‘shame’ and ‘embarrassment’ were frequently used to make these arguments. The rhetoric of loss was also identified in public opinion, with a small number of submissions expressing concerns about Australia’s reputation as a country that respects wildlife and comparisons made to Japanese whaling operations, which were framed as immoral.
While the rhetoric of endangerment was rarely used to frame SP2, it was identified through arguments about the danger of ecosystem collapse on future generations. This was identified in both the media and public opinion datasets. Overall, it was noted that claims-makers drew on the moral values of society to frame the pre-emptive killing of large sharks as a social problem through the rhetoric of entitlement, rhetoric of loss and rhetoric of endangerment, although these
Chapter 6: Discussion 226 were not identified in the majority of the data.
Typology of the problem
The problem of pre-emptively killing large sharks off WA in 2014 was typified in several ways, but predominantly, it was typified as a scientific problem. How a claim is typified refers to the language used to present the claim in order for it to gain traction with its audience (Best, 1995). While Best (1995) suggests the melodramatic and medical models as two alternative ways that a claim can be typified as part of its rhetoric, this research argues that the claim for SP2 was presented using a scientific model. An analysis of the data revealed that claims makers tended to use scientific arguments when criticizing the WASG for the introduction of the WA SHMDLP. This was especially observed in the public opinion dataset, where it was noted that the public generally had a good understanding of scientific concepts like ecosystem health and trophic cascades. Furthermore, the WA Greens Party, NSW EDO, City of Cockburn, HSI, WA Labor Party, ADO, CSIRO and Town of Cottesloe all criticized the program using scientific arguments. It was determined that these arguments were scientific because they aligned with the key arguments made from within the scientific community.
An alternative way that the problem was typified was through the melodramatic model. NGOs such as Sea Shepherd typified the WA SHMDLP as a problem where helpless sharks were being victimized, through their campaigns to the government and through the media. This model of typifying the problem was also identified in public opinion, with approximately 12% of submissions framing the problem this way. The media was found to have promoted the claim using both the scientific model and the melodramatic model depending on the claims-makers that they were representing in each article. As NGOs, such as Sea Shepherd and the HSI, represented a significant portion of claims-makers represented through media coverage of the topic, the melodramatic model was featured in the media more than in the remaining datasets, however, still less than the scientific model. It was noted that there was very little use of the melodramatic model used within LGs, the WASG or the DE, with occasional and brief consideration of animal welfare related arguments identified in Part 1 of Chapter 5.
Chapter 6: Discussion 227 Motifs
Rhetorical motifs are expressions of language that are used deliberately and repeatedly in the construction of a claim to invoke feelings within the audience (Hannigan 2014). While there were no reoccurring phrases identified in the data collected for this research with regards to the construction of SP2, it was noted that the term ‘cull’ appeared to act as an emotionally charged word designed to persuade audiences about the negative nature of the condition. In criticizing the WA SHMDLP, claims-makers in the media and public continually referred to the policy as a ‘cull’ despite the WASG firmly rejecting this term. This suggests that the use of the term ‘cull’ to describe the policy may have acted a rhetorical motif in the construction of SP2.
Claims-makers and claims-making processes
There was a wide range of claims-makers identified in the construction of SP2. As discussed, claims-makers refer to the people or groups of people trying to persuade an audience that a condition poses a threat to society and is, consequently, a social problem (Best 1995). Therefore, to further our understanding of how the problem of pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA in 2014 was constructed as a social problem, this chapter will now explore who acted as claims- makers in the construction of SP2, including their experience as claims-makers and vested interests, who was the target audience of the claims-makers and the claims-making processes that were used to present the claim.
The narrative analysis in Chapter 5 of this research revealed several claims-makers from government organizations, particularly the City of Cockburn, Town of Cottesloe, WA Greens Party, WA Labor Party, CMS Secretariat and Phil Edman from the WA Liberal Party. In 2012, the City of Cockburn’s Coogee Beach Shark Exclusion Zone Feasibility Study found that drum lining was not appropriate off Coogee Beach given the ‘very very low’ risk of shark bite to bathers and the likely environmental impacts of this shark hazard mitigation strategy. It was argued that drum lining was not suitable ‘not least because their use would be expected to lead to the death of protected marine species and required licenses would not be expected to be issued’. It is noted that, as the WA SHMDLP had not been announced by 2012, this was not an act of claims-making by the City of Cockburn. However, it does demonstrate this LG’s position on drum lining and is relevant because this Study was referred to multiple times in government
Chapter 6: Discussion 228 correspondence regarding opposition to the WA SHMDLP. Furthermore, the City of Cockburn discussed non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques with the Department of Commerce (DC) and DPC several times between 2012 and 2014 and cited community preference for environmentally friendly techniques as a key consideration in their application for an Eco Shark Barrier Trial. Again, while this is not evidence of deliberate claims-making to the WASG, it is evidence that the WASG was aware of this LG’s perception of lethal shark-hazard mitigation techniques as inappropriate and against community interests. Unlike the City of Cockburn, the Town of Cottesloe actively participated as claims-makers in the construction of SP2. In 2014, this LG lodged a submission with the WA EPA opposing the continuation of the WA SHMDLP for the 2014-2017 period on the basis that it’s effectiveness could not be proven, and it posed a threat to the environment. In the case of these two LGs, the WASG was the intended audience of the claims-making activities, with the City of Cockburn hoping to gain approval and funding for alternative methods of shark hazard mitigation and the Town of Cottesloe more directly arguing that the WA SHMDLP posed a threat to society and should not be continued. In both cases, these LGs represented the interests of their constituents, with the City of Cockburn taking active steps to measure community attitudes. Furthermore, LGs represent a group of experienced claims- makers, who acted in an official capacity. As mentioned, official claims-makers refer to groups within government who make their claims in the form of bureaucratic disputes (Best, 1995, p. 93).
The WA Greens Party and WA Labor Party both acted as claims-makers in the construction of SP2. Both parties campaigned directly to the WASG during Parliamentary sessions and to the public, through the media. The Labor Party criticized the WA SHMDLP for being rushed, unpopular with the public, environmentally unacceptable, costly, ineffective and cited the DF’s own assessment of drum lines as unacceptable for environmental reasons. Similarly, the WA Greens Party also criticized the policy for its impact on the environment and lack of popularity with the public, however, they also relied on an example to draw further support from their audience. The example that was used by the WA Greens Party was that of the baby dolphin, which was discussed previously. The Greens Party accused the government of ‘hiding it’s catch’ and suggested that the WASG had concealed the death of a baby dolphin on a drum line. Both of these political parties aimed to persuade the public, as their audience, of the legitimacy of the
Chapter 6: Discussion 229 claims that pre-emptively killing large sharks posed a threat to society. They both represent experienced claims-making groups who had vested interests in this condition being constructed as a social problem, as rival political parties to the WA Liberal Party who implemented the policy. It is noted that the WA Greens Party had an additional vested interest in preventing the environmental impacts of the policy as they are Party that represents ecological sustainability as one of four interconnecting pillars (WA Greens, 2019). In their capacity as official claims- makers, they directed their claims to the WASG in the form of bureaucratic conflicts and to the public, both directly through their own media releases and through the news media as part of political campaigns.
The Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) Secretariat from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) also acted as an official claims-maker in the construction of SP2. In February 2014, they approached the DE as their audience for the claim that the WA DPC should not have been granted an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) which allowed them to implement the WA SHMDLP. The CMS Secretariat argued that the policy could have a significant impact on the health of white shark populations, which is consistent with the interests of the organization which aims to assist developing countries with implementing environmentally sound policies (United Nations Environment Programme, 2019).
In 2013, WA Liberal Party member Phil Edman argued in a Parliamentary session that the government cannot control the marine environment and that bathers should invest in personal shark deterrents and take responsibility for their own safety. While Edman did not aggressively act as a claims-maker in the construction of SP2, his comments were relayed to the public by the media and repeated in Parliament in 2014 by a Greens member opposing the policy suggesting that he did contribute to the construction of SP2 on the grounds that it was not an effective shark hazard mitigation technique. As this was a leading criticism of the policy identified in all data sources collected for this project, it appears likely that Edman’s comments gained attention as he acted as a claims-maker who criticized the program from within his own Party.
Similarly to Edman, other comments made from within the WASG appear to have contributed to the claim about SP2. While it is acknowledged that the Premier, DPC and DF who designed and implemented the WA SHMDLP did not deliberately act as claims-makers in constructing their
Chapter 6: Discussion 230 own policy as a social problem, it appears that some of the contradictions made within these organisations contributed to the overall success of the claim. An analysis of the data revealed several key contradictions made from within the government. Firstly, in 2012 the DF told a LG that the risk of shark related hazards was impossible to measure due to the random nature of bite incidents and migratory nature of sharks, which was contradictory to the DPC’s subsequent claim in 2014 that the WA SHMDLP had been successful at reducing shark related risks.
Secondly, in 2014, Premier Barnett stated in a Legislative Assembly Meeting that the drum lines had been removed for the Rottnest Channel Swim because sharks are lured towards baited lines and it would be irresponsible to place these near swimmers. This was in direct opposition to the claims by the DPC that the WA SHMDLP would enhance bather safety and was consistent with one of the leading criticisms of the program, that placing baited drum lines off popular beaches would not enhance bather safety. This contradiction was repeated to the public by the media, allowing claims-makers to utilize it as a way of strengthening their claim.
Finally, in 2011, the Minister for Fisheries was quoted in an article by the ABC ruling out the implementation of a shark cull because it was ‘unlikely to have the desired effect’, which is contradictory to the government’s subsequent decision to implement a policy consistent with the definition of a ‘cull’ designed to enhance bather safety, despite their ongoing denials that the policy constituted a cull. Overall, the contradictions that were made by the DPC, Premier, DF, Minister for Fisheries and Phil Edman all appear to have aided the construction of the claim about SP2 being a social problem, in line with the warrant that it was not effective at enhancing bather safety.
Environmental organizations represented a large portion of active claims-makers in the construction of SP2 and were identified in all of the data sets collected for this research. Unsurprisingly, the primary concerns of these organizations related to the environment and included all environmentally relevant warrants, such as ecosystem health, targeting an endangered species and the program’s potential for bycatch. Sea Shepherd was identified as the most vocal group of claims-makers, campaigning directly to the WASG, through the media and through the EPA’s Public Submissions Forum. They were mentioned in 15% of articles that contributed to the construction of SP2, sent a letter directly to the DPC opposing the program in
Chapter 6: Discussion 231 February 2014, the Managing Director of the organization made a submission to the WA EPA opposing the continuation of the policy into 2017 and they applied for a judicial review of the WASG’s legal exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) with Sharon Burden. Unlike most conservation agencies that only opposed the WA SHMDLP for environmental reasons, Sea Shepherd used a range of warrants, relying heavily on welfare and legal warrants to rally support for their claim.
The Humane Society International (HSI) was the second most active environmental NGO in promoting the claim about SP2 and campaigned both directly to the OEPA and to the public through the media. The HSI expressed concerns about the impact of large hooks on bycatch and the lack of scientific evidence to support the program and rather than campaign to the DPC who implemented the policy. Rather than make their claim to the DPC, as the department responsible for the program, they approached the EPA as their audience with the request for the conclusion that the EPA assess the policy and determine it environmentally unacceptable. Their claim was also supported by the NSW Environmental Defenders Office, who was hired to represent the HSI in a request for the DE not to grant the WASG an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). Other environmental NGOs that were identified in at least one dataset included the Animal Defender’s Office (ADO), Project Aware, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Surfers for Cetaceans, WA Conservation Council, Support Our Sharks, the Wilderness Society, Western Australian’s for Shark Conservation, Animals Australia and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Most of these groups relied on the media to distribute their claims to their target audience, with some making submissions through the EPA’s submission forum. As discussed in Appendix 1 and Part 1 of Chapter 5, many of the details had been redacted from the documents collected through the applications to the government under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), particularly sender and recipient details. Therefore, it is noted that there was a possibility that some of these organisations had also campaigned directly to the government as well as through the media and EPA submissions forum, but this cannot be determined.
These organisations represent experienced claims-makers with a vested interest in maintaining the marine environment where the WA SHMDLP operated. Best (1995, p. 93) states that the activist type of claims-maker refers to a person or group who is usually motivated by ideologies but does not always an demonstrate expert knowledge in the discipline of their claim. As these
Chapter 6: Discussion 232 NGOs acted according to their environmentalist ideologies and did not always represent professionals in their field, it can be determined that these were activist claims-makers. In their role as activist claims-makers they targeted both the government and the public as their audiences.
A second group of activist claims makers that were identified in the construction of SP2 were celebrities. Ricky Gervais, Richard Branson and Kelly Slater were all quoted in the media criticizing the policy for a range of reasons including welfare and animal rights warrants, the potential damage that the program could cause the local economy through driving away tourists and being ineffective and unnecessary. These individuals have significant public profiles, which, according to Best (1995) is often a characteristic of activist type claims-makers.
The public also acted as an activist claims-making group in their contribution to the construction of the claims about SP2. There was a significant amount of public opposition to the pre-emptive killing of white sharks in WA identified in the submissions to the EPA and the DF, with the public most heavily relying on environmental warrants in their arguments that drum lining constituted a social problem. Following this, there was an obvious perception in the public that drum lining was either not proven effective at enhancing bather safety or that it would increase the risk to bathers. The public also expressed concern for the welfare and rights of animals impacted by drum lines, which was consistent with the claims used by other activist claims- makers and showed the least concern for the financial implications of the program, which was consistent with the lack of media coverage of this aspect of the claim. This was consistent with the literature on public perceptions towards sharks and shark bite incidents, which revealed that public opinion surrounding sharks is actually far more sophisticated than is commonly portrayed or suggested by media coverage and policy responses to shark attacks (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547). It was also revealed in the literature that shark attacks may not provoke negative feelings towards sharks from the public that would encourage the policy responses that follow attacks and aim to kill sharks (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547).
While individual members of the public were not featured as leading claims-makers in the media coverage of the topic, the media did play a role in supporting the public’s claims-making efforts by providing coverage of protests and rallies. Terms like ‘conservationists’, ‘activists’,
Chapter 6: Discussion 233 ‘environmentalists’ and ‘protestors’ were all used by the to describe the people who attended the public rallies in opposition to the WA SHMDLP. The public played a unique role in the construction of SP2, in that they acted as both an audience for the other claims-makers and as claims-makers themselves. As they mostly relied on environmental, ineffectiveness and ethical related arguments, it appears that they were heavily influenced by the scientific community (which will be discussed below) and other activist claims-makers in their understanding of how pre-emptively killing large sharks posed a threat to society.
Another way that it was revealed which claims-making groups influenced the public directly was through an examination of the pro forma submissions that were sent to the WA EPA and the references to supporting materials provided in some submissions. As stated in Chapter 5, almost one fifth of the submissions made by the public to the EPA comprised of seven pro forma submissions that all appeared more than one hundred times in the dataset. This is significant because it means that this portion of the public was directly influenced by other claims-makers in how they perceived the WA SHMDLP to constitute a social problem. Of these pro forma submissions that were able to have their origin sources identified, two were from Sea Shepherd, one from the WA Conservation Council, one from an article published in The Conversation by a Professor and Director of the Centre for Marine Futures at the University of Western Australia and one was traced to the Australian Marine Conservation Society. Additionally, of the submissions that included references or links to supporting materials, approximately 63% were academic materials from the scientific community or links to environmental NGOs. This is further evidence of the public successfully being persuaded by other activist groups and professional claims-makers.
Victims of shark bite incidents and their family members represent the final group of activist claims-makers that were identified in the construction of SP2. Sharon Burden, the mother of Shark bite fatality Kyle Burden and Rodney Fox were both quoted claims-making in several newspaper articles collected for this research. Furthermore, Sharon Burden took legal action against the WASG with Sea Shepherd through an application for a judicial review that sought to challenge the government’s exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). Both of these claims- makers used their public profile to gain attention for the condition that they believed was a social problem and were motivated by environmental concerns.
Chapter 6: Discussion 234 Professional claims-makers tend to consist of doctors, lawyers and scientists who can use their expertise in a discipline compliment the skills used by activists in claims-making (Best 1995, 93). With regards to SP2, the professional claims-makers that helped inform the public and activists were environmental scientists and shark hazard mitigation policy experts. The scientific community was highly involved with the construction of SP2; being approached from within government on several occasions to assess shark hazard mitigation techniques and acting as key claims-makers in the media’s representation of the problem. The two individual claims-makers from this community that were identified most frequently in the data were Barry Bruce and Christopher Neff.
As discussed in Part 1 of Chapter 5, CSIRO scientist Barry Bruce was commissioned by the OEPA to conduct a Peer Review of the DPC’s Public Environmental Review for the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017. In his assessment of the policy proposal, Bruce identified multiple errors with the program and determined that it did not meet the requirements of an Environmental Scoping Document. Bruce argued that the program had the potential to have a significant environmental impact, lacked measurable goals and was inadequately supported by scientific research. Bruce’s claims were made directly to the WASG and he did not utilize the media to reach his audience.
Unlike Bruce, Christopher Neff who was also identified as a key professional claims-maker in the construction of SP2, relied almost entirely on the media to distribute his claims. Neff is an expert in shark hazard mitigation policies with the University of Sydney and was identified as the leading professional claims-maker in the media dataset, being quoted in 4% of articles relating to the construction of SP2. Unlike environmental scientists who were concerned with the potential environmental impacts of pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA, Neff criticized the program for being a reactionary response to statistically insignificant events and lacking evidence that it would be successful at enhancing bather safety. As this was a leading concern expressed by the public, Neff appears to have been successful in informing the public about the harms posed by SP2 using this warrant. In addition, Neff made a submission via the WA EPA public submissions forum where he directly campaigned to the WASG about SP2.
Other professional claims-makers identified in this research consisted of zoologists, marine
Chapter 6: Discussion 235 biologists and ‘shark experts’ and were largely referred to in the media simply as ‘scientists’. The remaining claims-makers from within the scientific community opposed the program for environmental reasons and because it was deemed unlikely to enhance bather safety. Notably, a report commissioned by the DF to Bond University, argued that drum lines should not be introduced into WA for environmental reasons in a report that they released in 2012. And, while this was not part of the construction of SP2 because this was prior to the beginning of the construction of this social problem, this finding was later utilized by other claims-makers to strengthen their claim. It was revealed in Part 1 of Chapter 5 that Lynn McLaren referred to this report in her claims making efforts and the link to this report was identified as one of the most frequently cited reports provided in the public submissions to the EPA. Furthermore, as mentioned above, one of the leading pro forma submissions submitted to the EPA by the public was from an article published in The Conversation by a Professor and Director of the Centre for Marine Futures at the University of Western Australia. This is evidence of how professional claims-makers from the scientific community used the media to distribute their claim to the public as an audience and were successful in doing so.
Overall, professional claims-makers do not represent an experienced group of claims-makers and were less active in their claims-making than other groups. However, as stated previously, professional claims-makers tend to inform activist claims-makers and, as it was noted that the public had a good understanding of scientific concepts and opposed the cull for the same reasons as the scientific community, it appears that these professional claims-makers were successful in persuading their audience that the WA SHMDLP posed a threat to society.
Finally, the media act as claims-makers both for their own interests and as a tool used by other claims-makers to distribute their claims to a wider audience. Part 3 of Chapter 5 revealed that the announcement of the of the WA SHMDLP and its subsequent introduction prompted significant media coverage from newspaper outlets all over the world. The warrants used in the media were largely consistent with those identified as of most importance by the other claims-makers, with the difference that the media placed highest priority on public opposition to the WA SHMDLP as the leading reason why it constituted a social problem. While this suggests that the media was used by other stakeholders, such as professionals and activists to promote the claim of SP2, it also suggests that they were successful in persuading the public, as a target audience about the
Chapter 6: Discussion 236 threat SP2 posed to society.
Protess and McCombs (1991, p. 2) argue that the amount of media coverage given to an issue influences how important the public perceives the issue to be. With regards to SP2, it appears that the significant media coverage of the WA SHMDLP was successful in gathering support for the claim about SP2, which is further supported by the fact that the EPA received a record number of submissions from the public regarding this issue. As stated in Chapter 3, the media plays a key role in setting the policy agenda for government by informing the public about policies and conveying public opinion about policies back to governments (Soroka et al., 2012, p. 2). This may help explain the WASG’s decision not to proceed with the policy in the 2014 – 2017 period, given that the government was highly aware of the public opposition to the policy which was represented in both the media and through the submissions to the EPA and DF.
Conclusion
The issue of pre-emptively killing large sharks off WA in 2014 was successfully constructed as a social problem. It appeared that despite minor interest in single kill orders in the years prior to 2013, the claim that pre-emptively killing sharks was a social problem gained traction towards the end of 2013 when the media began reporting a potential ‘cull’ and the government announced its WA SHMDLP. An analysis of the data revealed that the rhetoric of this claim was mostly scientific and that techniques like rhetorical motifs designed to heighten the emotional response of the audience were limited. This was consistent with the findings that the scientific community acted as leading claims-makers who were successful in conveying their professional claims to their activist audiences of environmental organizations and the public.While the media played a large role in distributing the claim and naturally had its own interests in covering new- worthy topics, it was utilized by many other claims-makers as a tool. It was found that the scientific community, the public, environmental organisations and other activists and rival political parties were the most vocal claims-makers in the construction of SP2, with the public and WASG representing the target audiences of the claim. The primary conclusion identified in this research was for the WA SHMDLP to cease operation with the most significant concerns expressed consistently across all datasets being that it was environmentally unsound and not likely to be effective at enhancing bather safety.
Chapter 6: Discussion 237 6.5 COMPARISON
Claims Grounds
There were several differences in the way SP1 and SP2 were constructed. Firstly, SP1 emerged slowly as a broader problem because it took several instances of the same event (shark bite) occurring in an unusually short timeframe for claims-makers to begin to perceive these isolated events as a broader problem. Alternatively, while there was minor attention from the media given to single kill orders following bite incidents, SP2 emerged immediately as a social problem in November 2013 when the media first began to report the government’s plans to implement a ‘shark cull’, which was followed shortly after by the announcement of the WA SHMDLP. The graph (Figure 23) below illustrates the attention given by the media to both social problems, with November 2013 representing the point in time where media interest shifted from SP1 to SP2. In addition, by examining the period from October 2011 onwards, it is clear where the media has given increased attention to single bite incidents, as examples of the problem, which in each case, has been followed by minor coverage of single catch-and-kill orders.
Figure 23 - Timeline of Media Attention for SP1 and SP2
Furthermore, there was a difference in the number of examples and numerical estimates used to define the problem. Examples are used to make the problem more relatable to the audience and numerical estimates help to spark support for the claim by providing the audience with an
Chapter 6: Discussion 238 estimate of how severe the harm is (Hannigan, 2014). In the construction of SP1, claims-makers used both of these techniques in an effort to define the claim, with the media using individual fatal shark bite incidents as examples to make the problem more relatable to its audience and numerical estimates to draw attention to the frequency of the bite incidents during this period; for example, ‘five fatalities in ten months’.
This differed from the construction of SP2, in which examples and numerical estimates were rarely used to define the problem. While several examples were used to draw attention to issues of program mismanagement and animal cruelty, examples were not used to define the problem as an environmental one, perhaps because it failed to catch any of the species’ of most concern (white sharks, whales, dolphins, turtles). Furthermore, as it only operated for a short period of time and, again, failed to catch any of the species of most concern, this may also explain the lack of numerical estimates used to frame the problem as using this technique would not have helped to spark support for the claim. However, it was noted that the media did use numerical estimates to define the problem as a condition that was not representative of public interest by frequently citing the numbers of attendees at rallies.
One way in which these two social problems were defined similarly is through the boundaries that were placed on them. With regards to SP1, the concern about increasing shark bite frequency was specific to WA, despite this being the state with only the third highest rate of shark bite incidents in Australia over the previous 30 years and both SA and NSW suffering shark bite fatalities during the 2010 – 2013 period (Australian Geographic, 2015). Similarly, lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques have been used in QLD and NSW since as early as the 1930s yet these programs, which are arguably far more threatening to the marine environment, were subjected to almost no scrutiny from claims-makers during the 2010 – 2014 period that is examined in this research. Overall, this means that both SP1 and SP2 had geographic boundaries placed on them that limited them specifically to WA.
Warrants
There were significant differences in the warrants used by claims-makers in the construction of SP1 and SP2. The idea that increasing shark bite frequency in WA posed a threat to society was
Chapter 6: Discussion 239 simplistic with the overarching argument relying on the fact that people were being killed by sharks. While this was expressed directly through concern for human safety, the other two warrants that stemmed from this were that there was a level of public anxiety about the situation and the economy would be harmed through the potential impact on the tourism industry. Unlike SP1, claims-makers drew on a wide range of warrants in their arguments of how pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA constituted a social problem. Broadly, these concerns fell into the categories of environmental concerns, criticisms of the design, operation and effectiveness of the program, ethical concerns, legal concerns and financial concerns.
Conclusions
An interesting finding with the conclusions suggested by claims-makers for both SP1 and SP2 was that there was a significant level of overlap. Claims-makers for SP1 called for a range of conclusions to address the increasing bite frequency in WA including a both lethal and non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques. While it was noted that the media most frequently promoted lethal-shark hazard mitigation techniques, this was not consistent with other datasets where calls for smart drum lining, fixed beach enclosures and increased patrols, research and education were preferred. It was noted that this was consistent with the conclusions suggested by claims-makers in the construction of SP2. While there was no call for alternative lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques, all other datasets for SP2 suggested non-lethal alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques as a preferred conclusion. These findings were consistent with the literature discussed in Chapter 2, where it was revealed that the Australian media tends to misrepresent public opinion by promoting punitive shark hazard mitigation policies that aim to kill sharks, despite the fact that the public overwhelmingly prefers non-lethal alternatives (Neff & Yang, 2013, p. 547; Neff & Wynter, 2018, p. 7).
There was also a portion of claims-makers who suggested ceasing the operation of WA SHMDLP as a conclusion and not replacing it on the basis that there was no significant risk, however, the majority of conclusions proposed for SP2 involved the suggestion of non-lethal alternative methods of shark hazard mitigation. This is significant because it adds support to the warrant used in SP1 that there was a level of public anxiety about shark bite incidents and supports the legitimacy of that claim. However, as noted by Spector and Kitsuse (2001), whether
Chapter 6: Discussion 240 a claim that a condition poses a threat to society is legitimate or otherwise, is irrelevant to how the claim was constructed.
Rhetoric and typology
Claims-makers for both social problems relied on the same three rhetoric idioms to frame their claims as problems impeding on the morals of society. As mentioned, Ibarra and Kitsuse (1993) argue that rhetoric idioms are the image clusters used by claims-makers to persuade audiences of the moral components to their claims. The three idioms identified in this research for both SP1 and SP2 were the rhetoric of loss, the rhetoric of endangerment and the rhetoric of entitlement. In the construction of SP1, claims makers used the rhetoric of loss to frame the claim as a moral problem by arguing that Australia’s beach culture that was being lost as a result of increased shark bite frequency in WA. This framing technique was primarily identified in the media dataset for both social problems. However, it was used differently in the construction of SP2 where claims makers argued that the WA SHMDLP was a moral problem because it threatened the wildlife appreciating, environmentalist characteristics of Australian culture. This was also identified in concerns expressed about ‘Australia’s reputation’ which were found in the public opinion data.
The rhetoric of endangerment, which was also identified in the construction of both social problems was used by the public and the media to frame the claim. Firstly, the claims-makers for the problem of increased bite incidents in WA argued that human lives were at stake due to direct attacks on ocean users, and this was predominantly found in the media. Alternatively, claims-makers for SP2 argued much larger groups of people were being endangered by pre- emptively killing large sharks in WA. This was expressed through arguments about trophic cascades leading to collapses in fisheries and a reduction in the production of oxygen which could impact people across the world, especially future generations, and was mostly identified in the public opinion data in submissions that were identified as relating to ecosystem concerns or categorized as ‘other’.
Finally, the rhetoric of entitlement was identified in again, in both the media and public datasets. With regards to SP1, this rhetoric was mostly identified in the media and expressed in arguments
Chapter 6: Discussion 241 about people’s right to use the ocean for recreational purposes. This rhetoric idiom was relied on the least by claims-makers attempting to frame SP1 as an issue imposing on the moral values of society, while it was relied on more heavily by claims-makers in the construction of SP2. It was used frequently in the media’s coverage of Sea Shepherd and Ricky Gervais’ claims-making efforts, but less frequently in overall media coverage, and appeared in approximately 15% of public submissions. Claims-makers for SP2 used arguments about animal rights to argue that the moral values of society were being impeded upon by the implementation of drum lining as part of the WA SHMDLP. This was interesting because, in using this rhetoric idiom to frame the problem, claims-makers were representing the moral rights of animals, rather than themselves. As discussed in Chapter 2 and earlier in this chapter, this may relate to the increasing moral attention paid by humans to animals as part of the post-domestic era, in which humans have come to perceive wild animals as having their own intrinsic value (Bulliet, 2005; Norton, 1995; Verhoog, 1999).
Table 2 – Comparison of rhetoric idioms between SP1 and SP2 Rhetoric idiom SP1 SP2
Rhetoric of loss Loss of Australian beach Loss of Australia’s reputation culture as animal lovers
Rhetoric of endangerment Beach-goers lives directly Impact of collapsed threatened by sharks ecosystem on global food stocks and oxygen levels indirectly threatening the entire planet
Rhetoric of entitlement Western Australians have a Marine animals have a right right to use the ocean for to life recreational purposes
Chapter 6: Discussion 242 Typology of the problem
Unlike the rhetoric idioms, where claims-makers relied on the same three to frame SP1 and SP2, the way that claims-makers typified these social problems differed greatly. Claims-makers for SP1 aimed to draw on the emotions of their audience by using the melodramatic model to typify the problem of increased bite frequency in WA. Best (1995) states that claims-makers use this model to convince an audience that a condition is a social problem in which there are victims, villains and heroes. In the case of SP1, it was seen that the media framed the sharks as evil villains, through dramatic attention grabbing headlines aimed to scare readers like ‘What lurks beneath’, while they framed the people killed in shark bite incidents as helpless victims, through the use of increased coverage of these events as examples designed to rally support from the public. And finally, it was revealed that claims-makers campaigned to the government to act in the interests of Western Australian beach goers and tourism operators as heroes who could save society by addressing the problem through calls for conclusions like shark culls.
Alternatively, in the construction of SP2, claims-makers used the scientific model to typify the problem of pre-emptively killing large sharks as a problem relating to environmental science and conservation. This was done through the use of arguments consistent with those made by the scientific community. Official and activist claims-makers (the public and environmental NGOs) both drew on the report from Bond University that recommended against drum lining for environmental reasons to support their claims. Additionally, the arguments made from within the scientific community, which relied on the media to distribute their claims to their audiences were consistently and accurately used by all activist claims making groups, with it being noted that the public generally had a good understanding of the environmental impacts of drum lining on the WA marine environment. Where supporting references were provided in public submissions to the EPA, these were mostly to peer-reviewed academic materials.
Motifs
Finally, the use of emotive words and phrases used to invoke feelings of moral significance in an audience, known as rhetorical motifs, were identified in the construction of both social problems. With SP1, the media labelled WA as the ‘shark capital or the world’ and ‘deadliest place on earth’, which were both emotive phrases, designed to invoke fear in their audience, in addition to
Chapter 6: Discussion 243 using the sensationalist term ‘shark attack’ to describe shark bite incidents. This was consistent with the other methods of framing the condition as a moral problem used by claims-makers in the construction of this social problem, such as the rhetoric of endangerment and melodramatic model of typifying the problem. Alternatively, the only reoccurring phrase that appeared to be contentious, and therefore, illicit an emotional response in the construction of SP2, was the use of the label ‘shark cull’ to describe the WA SHMDLP. As was noted, the WA SHMDLP was consistent with the definition of the word ‘cull’ according to the Macquarie Dictionary (2019). However, as this was a term used by claims-makers in opposing the policy and the government made repeated efforts to deny their efforts constituted a ‘cull’, it appeared that the WASG perceived this to be a term with negative connotations. Overall, while there was a level of overlap in the rhetoric used to frame both social problems, SP1 relied more heavily on the use of emotive, fear mongering tactics to frame the increasing shark bite frequency as a moral problem, while pre-emptively killing large sharks was framed using the scientific model and relying on arguments consistent with scientific research.
Differences in claims-makers and claims-making processes
Claims-makers can be divided into four categories: official claims-makers, activists, pressure groups and professionals (Best, 1995, p. 93). This research revealed significant differences in the types of claims-makers who made the claims about SP1 and SP2. Chapter 5 revealed that the WASG was persuaded by claims-makers to implement the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 in response to the claims that increasing shark bite frequency in WA was a social problem that needed to be addressed. However, it was difficult to determine who the leading claims-makers were and what type of claims-making group they represented. While it was obvious that community groups like the MRBRC were influential in the development of the policy, it was unclear if this group represented a pressure group or an activist group. Furthermore, both the DE and WASG appeared to respond overwhelmingly to the claim that the economy was being threatening by bite incidents through the impact they had on potential tourism revenue. However, as there was no evidence of the tourism industry lobbying to the government as a pressure group and statistics revealed no negative impact on state tourism, it appeared that the WASG was influenced by the media’s representation of this threat or by the tourism industry, where records were not located through this research.
Chapter 6: Discussion 244 Alternatively, claims-makers were easily categorized into types for their roles in the construction of SP2. While there were claims-making efforts from official claims-makers, particularly rival political parties, most of the groups claiming that pre-emptively killing large sharks in WA was a social problem were activist claims-makers who appeared to have been accurately informed about the condition by professional claims-makers. The scientific community relied on the media and directly approaching the government in their claims-making efforts and the public, celebrities, victims and victims’ families and environmental organisations all relayed these claims back to the government in their calls to cease drum lining in WA.
Chapter 2 briefly discussed the ‘Save the Sharks’ social movement in which new mobilizations of actors are working to protect sharks (Pepin-Neff & Wynter, 2018). As part of this movement the scientific community are speaking out against environmentally irresponsible policies more frequently than ever before and the public is accepting alterative narratives about shark bite incidents, in which sharks do not intentionally hunt humans. This research supports the idea of the ‘Save the Sharks’ social movement given the significant role that scientists played in the construction of SP2 and the preference for non-lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques by the public.
It appeared that the media may have operated more in its own interests in the construction of SP1 than SP2, as there was little evidence located to support the claims made by newspaper outlets and overall there was less representation of other claims-making groups in the media coverage of this topic. This was consistent with Muter at al. (2013) and Neff’s (2014, p. 117) research which suggested that the Australian media coverage of sharks in general was more focused on shark bites, reporting comments from the political community and blaming individual sharks for bite events than it was on representing the interests of shark conservation or the scientific community. This was further supported in this research by the fact that there were more newspaper articles collected through Factiva for SP1 than SP2, meaning that the media dedicated more coverage to shark bite issues than a policy that sought to pre-emptively kill an endangered species despite criticism from the scientific community.
However, the media clearly acted on behalf of other claims-making groups in their role in the construction of SP2, with significantly more claims-makers being represented in this sample of
Chapter 6: Discussion 245 newspaper articles. Overall, while it was clear that the audience for SP2 was persuaded by scientific arguments and research that pre-emptively killing large sharks was a social problem, it was harder to determine how the WASG was persuaded that increasing bite frequency was a social problem. However, as there was little evidence to suggest it was in the interests of the public or economy, it may have been a function of the Issue-Attention Cycle or the Jaws Effect. As stated in Chapter 2, the ‘Issue-Attention Cycle’ refers to the cycle in which the media engages the public with specific issues, generating enough attention to create political pressure and for policy makers to develop solutions to a perceived problem (Down, 1972). While it was clear that the public was predominantly opposed to lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques, the number of alternative shark hazard mitigation techniques proposed by the public did demonstrate that there was a level of public anxiety to which the WASG felt pressured to respond. Furthermore, while the public, LGs, and scientific community all expressed a preference for non- lethal alternatives, the most frequently suggested conclusions in the media were for lethal shark hazard mitigation measures, such as drum lining. This suggests that the government was responding to the media’s coverage of increased bite frequency in their decision to introduce drum lining to WA as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
As discussed in Chapter 2, Neff and Hueter (2013) argue that the ‘Jaws Effect’ influenced the WASG in their policy response to increased bite frequency in WA in 2014, which was seen through the government’s reliance on framing sharks as villains in its promotion of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. This argument that this Effect played a role in the development of this program is also supported by the findings of this research. Firstly, the findings revealed that the media did present the issue of increased shark bite frequency as a problem stemming from individual sharks that needed to be killed, which was consistent with the Jaws Effect, and secondly, it revealed that, while there was a lack of public support for culling, there was a level of public anxiety about shark bite incidents.
It was noted that the focus from international media outlets was greater for SP1 than for SP2. Approximately 23% of coverage for SP1 was from international newspaper outlets, compared to only 14% for SP2. This significant international focus for SP1 might have played a role in the pressure that the WA Government seemed to experience to address the increasing shark bite frequency that lead to the implementation the WA SHMLP. This is consistent with the media’s
Chapter 6: Discussion 246 use of the impact on tourism being the most frequently used ‘warrant’ in the construction of SP1 and the DPC and DE’s frequently expressed concerns about the impact on the economy from reduced tourism revenue resulting from shark bite incidents. Furthermore, it was consistent with the literature, which revealed that policies designed to kill sharks following shark bite incidents tend to claim to be addressing public outcry but are often more heavily influenced by the media’s portrayal of the incident and the tourism industry (Neff & Yang 2013, p. 545).
6.6 CONCLUSION This chapter aimed to conduct a brief policy analysis based on the available data and compare the different ways that both social problems were constructed. While the legitimacy of the threats posed by either condition labelled a social problem is irrelevant to whether or not they were successfully constructed as social problems, an analysis of the policy revealed some inconsistencies and contradictions that appeared to fuel the claims-making efforts for SP2. For example, the data revealed that, while the WASG deemed the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 to have been successful in achieving its policy objectives, this was not supported by scientific evidence and not the perception of the public or media. Alternatively, the program, which was heavily criticized for being likely to have a negative environmental impact, did not result in any of the negative impacts that claims-makers expressed the most concern about. Overall, it appeared that neither of the conditions posed as much of a threat to society as claims-makers had argued.
While there were some similarities in the way the claims were constructed, overall, the media played a more significant role in the construction of SP1 than SP2, given that there were many more claims-making groups and claims-making efforts identified in the construction of SP2. The media relied heavily on invoking an emotional response from its audience in its efforts to persuade the public that increased bite frequency threatened society in WA. Alternatively, the construction of pre-emptively killing large sharks off WA was constructed as a social problem primarily through the use of scientific evidence and social activism. It is noted that while SP2 was successfully constructed as a social problem and the program was abandoned, this was despite the government’s continued arguments that the program had been successful and recommendation that it be continued for the 2014 - 2017 period. Overall, it appeared that the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was primarily a government response to the
Chapter 6: Discussion 247 dramatized and international media coverage of an increase in shark bite frequency in WA.
The importance of social processes has been underplayed in analyses of shark hazard mitigation. This research demonstrates that a range of social processes are integral to developing and implementing policy in the area. It is this ‘social’ aspect of the issue of shark mitigation strategies and the WA government’s responses to the issue that sheds new light on a complex topic. This detailed analysis of social processes demonstrates how the construction of social problems occurs and adds insights to scholars interested in wildlife-human conflict and shark hazard mitigation strategies. For example, scholars and practitioners in this area could be more mindful of the role of media or use media to their advantage. Additionally, scholars and practitioners who develop shark hazard mitigation strategies could build greater connection with the marine science community. This could be useful for developing shark hazard mitigation policies in the future that are more strongly supported by science and more positively received by the public.
Chapter 6: Discussion 248 Chapter 7: Conclusion
7.1 INTRODUCTION In 2013, the WASG announced the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, to be commenced in January 2014 and operate as a three-month trial program. As part of this program, the government sought to pre-emptively catch and kill large predatory sharks swimming in popular areas for recreational ocean use using drum lines. The premise for this program was that reducing the number of dangerous sharks in close proximity to bathers would reduce the risk of shark bite events, thereby enhancing bather safety. This policy was in response to a series of shark bite events that occurred off the WA coastline between 2010 and 2013 and generated significant interest from the public and media. Despite aiming to address the concern about increasing shark bite frequency in WA, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was a highly controversial policy that sparked criticism from a range of different groups, including the public, media, scientific community, environmental organisations and from within government. This research sought to examine the series of events that unfolded in WA between 2010 and 2014, in which there appeared to be a heightened level of community interest in shark bite incidents, which was followed by significant interest in the policy response aimed to address these initial community concerns. It demonstrated that the tension between managing shark related hazards and shark conservation enabled dominant stakeholder groups to ‘capture’ the policy agenda and therefore shape policy responses.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS An analysis of the relevant literature revealed that shark bite incidents are generally increasing worldwide, despite ongoing reductions in global shark populations. This is most likely due to a combination of factors resulting from increasing human presence in shark habitat due to population growth and the modification of human behaviours that has seen an increase in recreational ocean use (West, 2011, p. 751). This suggests that human-wildlife conflict, in the form of shark bite events is likely to continue to increase in frequency, making research in this area particularly useful for informing policy responses to shark related hazards in the future. Furthermore, the literature revealed that large predatory sharks are apex predators and play an important role maintaining ecosystem health (Last & Stevens, 2009, p. 5), further increasing the
Chapter 7: Conclusion 249 importance of this research, which aimed to examine factors that contributed to deliberate government efforts to reduce local populations of these keystone species in WA.
The existing research suggests that, overall, the public’s perceptions of sharks are positive and that there is an increasing level of awareness about the conservation efforts required to maintain these species at healthy population levels (Pepin-Neff and Wynter, 2018, p. 223; Neff & Wynter, 2018, p. 7). Studies from around the world revealed that the public are usually unsupportive of lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques implemented in response to shark bite events and that the media, especially in Australia, plays a large role in misrepresenting public interests to policy makers and portraying sharks negatively using stereotypical narratives based on popular culture (Muter, et al., 2013).
It was revealed that modern human perceptions of wild animals have altered in a way that has seen an increased level of consideration given to non-human animals as moral beings. This may be a product of the post-domestic era, in which modern Australia operates, where there is a consensus that is it immoral to interfere with wild animals (Bulliet, 2005). Or it could be indicative of the presence of new-speciesism in Australian culture, whereby people attribute greater moral value to specific animal species based on a variety of factors, such as conservation status (Jean Moore, 2013, p. 12).
After considering the existing literature, the researcher determined that there must have been anthropogenic biases that influenced the reactions to both the increasing shark bite frequency in WA and the subsequent policy response. Therefore, this research sought to answer two research questions: 1) How were shark bite incidents in WA constructed as a social problem that contributed to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 as a policy response? And; 2) How was the pre-emptive killing of large sharks in WA in 2014, as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014, constructed as a second social problem?
It was determined that the research would be framed using a constructionist framework, whereby the two conflicting events would be examined as two distinct social problems. It was determined that the TCMA was the most appropriate theory for this research as it would allow for an examination of how each of these conditions were successfully constructed as social problems.
Chapter 7: Conclusion 250 This was done by examining how the conditions were framed as social problems, who acted as claims-makers in persuading the public that they were social problems and what processes were used in doing so.
The research was conducted using qualitative data from a variety of sources that aimed to provide complete representation of all relevant stakeholders and their perceptions of shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques. The data was coded and analysed qualitatively, with the findings being quantified to allow for both an in-depth understanding of the perceptions of stakeholders and increased generalizability of the findings. Triangulation of the different datasets and the literature identified a series of contradictions made by the government regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. A brief policy analysis revealed that the WASG was unable to prove that either of the primary objectives of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 had been achieved and there was the possibility that the drum lining operations may even have decreased bather safety off the WA coastline.
Analysis of the data suggested that the problem of increased shark bite frequency in WA was primarily constructed as a social problem by pressure groups and the media, who used the melodramatic model to typify the problem and persuade the WASG and DE that it was necessary to address the problem by implementing a shark cull. However, it is noted such a finding assumes there was no political reason for undertaking the policy and that this could be followed by an analysis of the leadership style of the Premier at the time, an analysis of political context or any views regarding political expediency that may have underpinned these policy decisions. While it was clear that the public had been persuaded by the media that increasing shark bite frequency was a social problem, with which to be concerned about, it was evident that the public did not play a role in persuading the government to implement lethal shark hazard mitigation techniques. It was revealed that the primary arguments used to convince the government to implement the catch-and-kill policy were the impact that shark bite events could have on the economy through reducing tourism revenue and the level of public concern over shark bite events. These findings were consistent with the ‘Jaws Effect’ having been at play and the WASG having been influenced to develop a policy response to shark bite incidents in line with pressures from the media resulting from the Issue-attention cycle.
Chapter 7: Conclusion 251 By applying the TCMA to the data, it was revealed that pre-emptively killing large sharks as part of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was constructed as a social problem by professional, activist and official claims making groups who aimed to persuade the public and WASG that the condition constituted a social problem. It was determined that the media was used by these claims-making groups to typify the condition as a social problem using the scientific model. The findings suggested new-speciesism may have contributed to the increased levels of concern for white sharks and dolphin bycatch and that the concern for the welfare and rights of animals impacted by drum lines were consistent with the social attitudes of the post-domestic era. Furthermore, the ‘Save the Sharks’ movement was considered likely to have played a role in why this policy was subjected to such high levels of scrutiny while more environmentally detrimental policies have operated for decades off the east Australian Coast.
It was found that the primary warrants used by claims-makers for both social problems were unfounded. For SP1, overall state tourism was not negatively impacted by increased shark bite frequency, with statistics showing visitor estimates were exceeded during the period impacted and while there was a level of public anxiety about shark bite events, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 was not supported by the majority of the public. Conversely, the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 failed to catch any white sharks, dolphins or turtles and operated for such a brief period of time that it was considered unlikely to have had any ongoing impact on the ecosystem.
It appeared that the claims-makers for the construction of SP1 were less well informed in their claims-making efforts than claims-makers for SP2, whose arguments were strongly supported by scientific evidence. Alternatively, claims-makers for SP1 relied far more heavily on emotive language in their claims-making efforts. Despite this, it was determined that both conditions were successfully constructed as social problems with SP1 leading to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and SP2 leading to the cessation of the trial program, which may have otherwise operated during the 2014 – 2017 period.
It is recognized that the findings of this research are limited in several ways. Firstly, it is possible that more comprehensive applications for information under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) would have led to the identification of additional documents relevant to understanding the positions of key stakeholders with regards to the research. Similarly, while the total number of articles collected
Chapter 7: Conclusion 252 during Phase 3 of the research were analysed, the researcher acknowledges that the inclusion of additional search terms used to collect articles in Factiva could have led to the collection of a larger number of newspaper articles. Furthermore, other types of media data, such as television and radio were not represented in the data. Finally, the data collected to analyse public opinion was only representative of the sample of the population that made submissions to the EPA, rather than the total population. However, due to the large number of government documents, public submissions and newspaper articles collected throughout this research, it has been determined that the key stakeholders have all been adequately represented in the research and that the findings are unlikely to be impacted by these potential limitations.
7.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH This research drew its findings from a vast amount of data that was required to be comprehensively summarized and discussed. While amount of data is a strength of the project, it is acknowledged that this has limited the potential for the research to consider other disciplinary perspectives, within the time and word constraints of the project. For example, while it was determined that a thorough analysis of moral panic theory was not possible with the available data, the researcher intends to complete additional research in this area outside of this project using a large portion of the same data. Additionally, the researcher intends to author several journal articles utilising the same data from the perspectives of green criminology and public policy. The completion of this project has allowed for the possibility of similar projects to be completed, examining other examples of human-wildlife conflict. For example, by drawing on the TCMA and collecting data through applications for information under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) and Factiva, it may be possible to examine the responses of various stakeholder groups to other issues involving conflict with wild animals and the subsequent policy responses. This research determined that the way that policy makers respond to human-wildlife conflicts is heavily influenced by other stakeholder groups. It was determined that pressure groups can act outside of public interest and that the media can misrepresent public opinion to policy makers, resulting in unpopular policy outcomes. Therefore, using the same methodology as this project, similar projects might uncover the same findings across other examples of human-wildlife conflict in Australia.
Chapter 7: Conclusion 253 This methodology could be applied to other predator examples, such as the increasing population of saltwater crocodiles in northern Australia and the subsequent Management Program for the Saltwater Crocodile in the Northern Territory of Australia, 2014 – 2015, which allows for the commercial harvest of crocodile eggs. Alternatively, it could be used to examine legislative outcomes resulting from conflicts with species that negatively impact on agriculture, such as flying foxes and the Land Protection Legislation (Flying-fox Control) Amendment Bill 2012, which grants farmers damage mitigation permits that allows them to shoot flying foxes.
Such projects could be beneficial to future policy makers by allowing them to make informed policy responses to human-wildlife conflicts that consider the perceptions of different stakeholder groups and how anthropogenic biases and media representation of issues can influence how human-wildlife conflicts are understood. This research is important because it discusses the ‘social’ aspect of the issue of shark mitigation strategies and the WA government’s responses to the issue which sheds new light on a complex topic. Demonstrating the strategies and techniques of key stakeholders in a policy area is important because it highlights a ‘hierarchy’ of policy stakeholders and political responses to this hierarchy. It is hoped that this research can be used to inform scholars interested in wildlife-human conflict and shark hazard mitigation strategies how policies such as the WA SHMDLP come into effect. Additionally, this research should teach practitioners that they could be more mindful of the role of media or use media to their advantage in navigating the tensions between shark conservation and negative human-shark interactions. Additionally, it should be used to encourage policy makers to build greater connections with the marine science community. Overall, it is hoped that this research has contributed to the understandings of human-wildlife conflicts by providing a comprehensive analysis of a series of events in which a policy response that sought to reduce population numbers of an internationally protected species was implemented.
Chapter 7: Conclusion 254 Reference List
Adams, J., Khan, H., Raeside, R., & White, D. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis. In Research Methods for Graduate Business and Social Science Students (pp. 155–169). New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Albert, C., & Courchamp, F. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS One, 13(7). https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199149 Australian Associated Press. (2014, January 2). Shark cull: Nationwide protests against ‘catch and kill’ policy in WA. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/thousands-protest-against-wa-shark-cull Australian Geographic. (2015). Deadly shark attacks in Australia: A timeline. Australian Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science- environment/2015/07/shark-attacks-in-australia-a-timeline/ Bassis, M. S., Gelles, R. G., & Levine, A. (1982). Social Problems. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Benson, N. (2011). Shark nets: Are they worth it? Otago Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/142825/shark-nets-are-they-worth-it Best, J. (1989). Afterword: Extending the constructionist perspective: A conclusionâ”And an introduction. In Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Best, J. (1995). Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=5065017. Best, J. (2010). Spector, Malcolm, and John I. Kitsuse: Constructing Social Problems. In Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/reference/download/criminologicaltheory/n23 9.pdf Bornatowski, H., Navia, A. F., Braga, R. R., Abilhoa, V., & Corrêa, M. F. M. (2014). Ecological importance of sharks and rays in a structural foodweb analysis in southern Brazil. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal Du Conseil, 71(7), 1586–1592. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu025 Bradford, R., & Robbins, R. (2013). A rapid assessment technique to assist management of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) cage dive industry, South Australia. Open Fish Science Journal, 6, 13–18. Reference List 255 Brook, L. A., Johnson, C. N., & Ritchie, E. G. (2012). Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(6), 1278–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02207.x Bruce, B. D., & Bradford, R. W. (2011). The effects of berleying on the distribution and behaviour of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias , at the Neptune Islands, South Australia. Retrieved from Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia website: http://satic.com.au/images/uploads/documents/Effects_of_Berleying_Final_Report.pdf Bruce, Barry D. (1992). Preliminary Observations on the Biology of the White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, in South Australian Waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43, 1–11. Bruce, B.D., Stevens, J. D., & Malcolm, H. (2006). Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters. Marine Biology, 150(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0325-1 Bulliet, R. (2005). Hunters, herders and hamburgers: The past and future of human-animal relationships. Columbia University Press. Burgess, G. (2009). International Shark Attack File: The Relative Risk of Shark Attacks to Humans: More Men Mean More Attacks. Retrieved 10 August 2015, from http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/ Burgess, G. H. (2015). ISAF 2014 Worldwide Shark Attack Summary. Retrieved 7 March 2015, from http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2014Summary.html Caldicott, D. G. E., Mahajani, R., & Kuhn, M. (2001). The anatomy of a shark attack: A case report and review of the literature. Injury, 32(6), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020- 1383(01)00041-9 Cardone, B. J. (1994, December). Sharks you should know: The Tiger Shark. Skin Diver, 43(12), 28.
Reference List 256 Cliff, G., & Dudley, S. (1992). Protection against shark attack in South Africa, 1952 to 1990. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9920263 Cliff, G., & Dudley, S. F. J. (1991). Sharks caught in the protective gill nets off Natal, South Africa. 4. The bull shark Carcharhinus leucas Valenciennes. South African Journal of Marine Science, 10(1), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.2989/02577619109504636 Cliff, G., Dudley, S. F. J., & Davis, B. (1989). Sharks caught in the protective gill nets off Natal, South Africa. 2. The great white shark Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus). South African Journal of Marine Science, 8(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.2989/02577618909504556 Cliff, Geremy, & Dudley, S. (2011a). Reducing the environmental impact of shark-control programs: A case study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 700–709. Cliff, Geremy, & Dudley, S. (2011b). Reducing the environmental impact of shark-control programs: A case study from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 700–709. Conservation group says shark attacks are not affecting tourism. (2014). ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/conservation-group-says-shark-attacks-are- not-affecting-tourism/6846176 Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J.-L., & Tremblay, E. (2010). Knowledge Exchange Processes in Organizations and Policy Arenas: A Narrative Systematic Review of the Literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444–483. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (2015a). Great white shark. Retrieved from http://www.cites.org/eng/gallery/species/fish/great_white_shark.html Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (2015b). How CITES works. Retrieved from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.php Convention on Migratory Species. (2015). Great White Shark. Retrieved 26 June 2015, from http://sharksmou.org/?q=node/58 CSIRO. (2015). White shark research findings. Retrieved from https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Environment/Oceans-and-coasts/Sharks/White-shark- r esearch-findings
Reference List 257 Cull. (2019). In Macquarie Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www-macquariedictionary-com- au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/features/word/search/?search_word_type=Dictionary&word= cull Curtis, T. H., Bruce, B. D., Cliff, G., Dudley, S. F. J., Klimley, P. A., Kock, A. A., … West, J. G. (2012). Responding to the risk of white shark attack: Updated statistics, prevention, control methods and recommendations. In Global perspecitves on the biology and life history of white shark (pp. 477–509). CRC Press. Daw, J. R., Morgan, S. G., Thompson, P. A., & Law, M. R. (2013). Here today, gone tomorrow: The issue attention cycle and national print media coverage of prescription drug financing in Canada. Health Policy, 110(1), 65–75. https://doi- org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.01.006 Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2014). Review: Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013â”14. Retrieved from https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/Review%20- %20Western%20Australia%20Shark%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Drum%20Line%20P rogram%202013-14.pdf Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. (2006). A Report on the Queensland Shark Safety Program. Retrieved from https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Consultation/Documents/Appendix%2014%20A%20Repo rt %20on%20the%20Queensland%20Shark%20Safety%20Program.pdf
Department of Primary Industries NSW. (2015). Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program 2014-15 Annual Performance Report. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0007/571750/shark-meshing-bather- protection-program-2014-15-annual-performance-report.pdf Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013a). Issues Paper for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6eb72ed4-a3fa-4604-b722- a5c2b45ad1e9/files/white-shark-issues-paper.pdf Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013b). Recovery Plan for the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Retrieved from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/ce979f1b-dcaf-4f16-9e13-
Reference List 258 010d1f62a4a3/files/white-shark.pdf Dixon, P. (2015). Final Recommendation: Current Shark Meshing Program in New South Wales Waters. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0005/208319/FR24-shark-meshing.pdf Downs, A. (1972). Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. Public Interest, 28, 38–50. Dudley, S. (1997). A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu–Natal (South Africa). Ocean and Coastal Management, 34(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(96)00061-0 Dudley, S. F. J., & Gribble, N. A. (1999). Management of Shark Control Programs. Retrieved from Northern Fisheries Centre, Queensland Department of Primary Industries website: https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/Consultation/Documents/Appendix%2011%20Management %20of%20Shark%20Control%20Programs.pdf Dudley, S., & Simpfendorfer, C. (2006). Population status of 14 shark species caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu–Natal beaches, South Africa, 1978–2003. Marine and Freshwater Research, 57(2), 225–240. Environment, D. of the. (2008, December 9). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) [Text]. Retrieved 26 June 2015, from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc Farley, J. E. (1987). American Social Problems: An institutional Analysis. Prentice Hall PTR. Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G. L., Heithaus, M. R., & Lotze, H. K. (2010). Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13(8), 1055– 1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01489.x Fisheries Minister’s Office. (2016, September 5). Our State Budget 2016-17: Supporting and protecting our communityâ”Funding commitment to address shark hazard. Retrieved from Government of Western Australia website: https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2016/05/Funding-commitment- to-address-shark-hazard.aspx Friedrich, L. A., Jefferson, R., & Glegg, G. (2014). Public perceptions of sharks: Gathering support for shark conservation. Marine Policy, 47, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.003
Reference List 259 Frydenberg, J. (2017). Time for action on sharks. The West Australian. Retrieved from https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/time-for-action-on-sharks-ng-b88480310z Goldman, K. J. (1997). Regulation of body temperature in the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 167(6), 423– 429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003600050092 Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 149–171. Government of Hong Kong. (2015). Safety at the beach. Retrieved 21 October 2011, from Safety at the beach website: http://www.gov.hk/en/residents/culture/recreation/water/safetyatbeach.htm Government of Western Australia. Wildlife Conservation Act. , (1950). Government of Western Australia. Environment Protection Act 1986. (1986). Government of Western Australia. Fish Resources Management Act. ,(1994). Government of Western Australia. Animal Welfare Act. , (2002). Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries. (2015). Recreational fishing guide 2015. Retrieved from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/recreational_fishing/rec_fishing_guide/rules_guid e_statewide.pdf Green, M., Ganassin, C., & Reid, D. D. (2009). Report into the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276029/Report-into-the-NSW- Shark-Meshing-Program.pdf Gribble, N. A., McPherson, G., & Lane, B. (1998). Effect of the Queensland Shark Control Program on non-target species: Whale, dugong, turtle and dolphin: A review. Marine and Freshwater Research, 49(7), 645–651. https://doi.org/doi:10.1071/MF97053 Hannigan, J. (2014). Social construction of environmental issues and problems. In Environmental Sociology (3rd ed., pp. 50–71). Retrieved from http://reader.eblib.com.au/(S(j0qieewnqj1wffcphuqbskz4))/Reader.aspx?p=1659185&o= 96&u=Qpm2eGVtkRL1b9yqcZwY1w%3d%3d&t=1467259433&h=BD46A3B270EB70 84D5A86F732819F8A980CD4EFB&s=26305034&ut=245&pg=1&r=img&c=- 1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=1#
Reference List 260 Hazin, F. H. V., & Afonso, A. S. (2013). A Green Strategy for Shark Attack Mitigation off Recife, Brazil. Animal Conservation, 17, 287–296. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/acv.12096 Hazin, F. H. V., & Afonso, A. S. (2014). Response: A conservation approach to prevention of shark attacks off Recife, Brazil. Animal Conservation, 17(4), 301–302. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1111/acv.12160 Hazin, F. H. V., Burgess, G., & Carvalho, F. (2008). A shark attack outbreak off Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil: 1996â”2006. Bulletin of Marine Science, 82(2), 199–212. Heithaus, M. R., & Dill, L. M. (2002). Food Availability and Tiger Shark Predation Risk Influence Bottlenose Dolphin Habitat Use. Ecology, 83(2), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/2680029 Heithaus, M. R., Wirsing, A. J., Dill, L. M., & Heithaus, L. I. (2007). Long-term movements of tiger sharks satellite-tagged in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Marine Biology, 151(4), 1455–1461. http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1007/s00227-006-0583-y Holmes, B. J., Sumpton, W. D., Mayer, D. G., Tibbetts, I. R., Neil, D. T., & Bennett, M. B. (2012). Declining trends in annual catch rates of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries Research, 129–130, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.06.005 Hunt, G. (2014). Statement of reasons for granting an exemption under section 158 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Commonwealth of Australia. Ibarra, P., & Kitsuse, J. (1993). Vernacular Cons tituents of Moral Discourse: An Interactionist Proposal for the Study of Social Problems. In Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social Problems Theory (Social Problems and Social Issues) (pp. 21–54). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2015). Overview of The IUCN Red List. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/overview Jacobs, G. (2005). Speciesism. Anthrozoos, 18(4), 443–445. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2752/089279305785594018 Jean Moore, L. (2013). Speciesism. Contexts, 21(1), 12–13. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1177/1536504213476240 Jenson, N. H. (1976). Reproduction of the Bull Shark, Carcharhinus leucas, in the Lake
Reference List 261 Nicaragua Rio San Juan system. In Investigation of the icthyofauna of Nicaragua lakes (pp. 539–559). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiska, J. J., & Heithaus, M. R. (n.d.). The state of knowledge on sharks for conservation and management. In Sharks: Conservation, Governance and Management (pp. 69–89). Retrieved from http://reader.eblib.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/%28S%28bqrwsu0omrawipjfzl2kvpe 1%29%29/Reader.aspx?p=1707399&o=96&u=4MnvrJrrkkFUMqrnnMB7%2bw%3d%3 d&t=1430711281&h=D1AE288A10E688F6A1F90C50D0235636DF467F10&s=189876 69&ut=245&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=1 Last, P. R., & Stevens, J. D. (2009). Sharks and rays of Australia (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Lippmann, W. (1991). Public Opinion. In Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking (1st ed., Vols 1–Routledge Communication Series, pp. 5– 16). Routledge. Martin, R. A. (2005). Conservation of freshwater and euryhaline elasmobranchs: A review. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85(05), 1049–1073. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315405012105 McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling Stories About Global Climate Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026001003 McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1991). Agenda-setting Function of Mass Media. In Routledge Communication Series. Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policymaking. Erlbaum. McShane, K. (2007). Why Environmental Ethics Shouldn’t Give Up on Intrinsic Value. Environmental Ethics, 29, 43–61. Mercer, D. (2016, March 10). WA Fisheries Minister Joe Francis wants federal help with shark research. The West Australian. Retrieved from https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/wa- fisheries-minister-joe-francis-wants-federal-help-with-shark-research-ng-ya-119743
Reference List 262 Minister’s Office. (2014). Figures support shark mitigation strategy. Government of Western Australia. Retrieved from https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2014/05/Figures-support-shark- mitigation-strategy-.aspx Minister’s Office. (2017). A smarter approach to shark mitigation in WA waters. Government of Western Australia. Retrieved from https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2017/05/A-smarter-approach- to-shark-mitigation-in-WA-waters.aspx Minister’s Office. (2018). CSIRO report finds white shark numbers have not increased in WA. Retrieved from https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2018/02/CSIRO-report- finds- white-shark-numbers-have-not-increased-in-WA.aspx Morris, C. (2011). Rulin on shark nets remains after vote. Otago Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/164032/ruling-shark-nets-remains-after-vote Muter, B. A., Gore, M. L., Gledhill, K. S., Lamont, C., & Huveneers, C. (2013). Australian and US news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(1), 187–196. Neff, C. (2012). The rise of shark nets? Retrieved from http://saveourseas.com/update/the-rise- of-shark-nets/ Neff, C. (2014). Human perceptions and attitudes towards sharks: Examining the predator policy paradox. In Sharks: Conservation, Governance and Management (1st ed., pp. 107–131). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203750292 Neff, C. (2015). The Jaws Effect: How movie narratives are used to influence policy responses to shark bites in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2014.989385 Neff, C., & Hueter, R. (2013). Science, policy, and the public discourse of shark “attack”: A proposal for reclassifying human–shark interactions. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0107-2 Neff, C. L., & Yang, J. Y. H. (2013). Shark bites and public attitudes: Policy implications from t he first before and after shark bite survey. Marine Policy, 38, 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.017
Reference List 263
Neff, C., & Wynter, T. (2018). Shark Bites and Shark Conservation: An analysis of Human Attitudes Following Shark Bite Incidents in Two Locations in Australia. Conservation Letters, 11(2), 1–8. Norton, B. (1995). Caring for nature. A broader look at animal stewardship. In Ethics on the ark. Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. (pp. 102–121). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. (2019). Access information under FOI. Retrieved from https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/your-foi-rights/access- information-under-foi/ O’Neill, J. (1992). The Varieties of Intrinsic Value. The Monist, 75, 119–137. Orr, A. (2013). Sharks caught in catch and kill order. WA Today. Retrieved from http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/sharks-caught-in-catch-and-kill-order-20130109- 2cft2.html Orr, A. (2015). Timeline of shark attacks along the Western Australian coast. WA Today. Retrieved from http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/timeline-of-shark-attacks-along- the-western-australian-coast-20150102-12gtvl.html Paterson, R. A. (1990). Effects of long-term anti-shark measures on target and non-target species in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation, 52(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(90)90123-7 Pepin-Neff, C., & Wynter, T. (2018). Reducing fear to influence policy preferences: An experiment with sharks and beach safety policy options. Marine Policy, 88, 222–229. Pepperell, J. G. (1992). Trends in the distribution, species composition and size of sharks caught by Gamefish Anglers off South-eastern Australia, 1961-90. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1), 213–225. Premier’s Office. (2014, October 24). State reaches agreement with Commonwealth on shark policy. Retrieved from https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2014/10/State-reaches- agreement-with-Commonwealth-on-shark-policy.aspx Premier’s Office. (2015a, January 10). Daily Surf Life Saving aerial patrols start today.
Reference List 264 Retrieved from Government of Western Australia website: https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/10/Daily-Surf-Life-Saving- aerial-patrols-start-today.aspx Premier’s Office. (2015b, June 17). Shark research yields promising results. Retrieved from Government of Western Australia website: https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2015/06/Shark-research-yields- promising-results.aspx Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1991). Agenda Setting: Readings on Media, Public Opinion, and Policy making. Erlbaum. Reid, D. D., Robbins, W. D., & Peddemors, V. M. (2011). Decadal trends in shark catches and effort from the New South Wales, Australia, Shark Meshing Program 1950â”2010. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 676–693. Richards, Kelly, & Bartels, L. (2011). Introduction. The story behind the stories: Qualitative criminology research in Australia. In Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the field (pp. 1–24). Sydney: Hawkins Press. Richards, Kirsty, O’Leary, B. C., Roberts, C. M., Ormond, R., Gore, M., & Hawkins, J. P. (2015). Sharks and people: Insight into the global practices of tourism operators and their attitudes to Shark behaviour. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 91(1), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.004 Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Sanchez-Algarra, P., & Anguera, M. T. (2013). Qualitative/quantitative integration in the inductive observational study of interactive behaviour: Impact of recording and coding among predominating perspectives. Quality and Quantity, 47(2), 1237–1257. Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social Problems Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209–229. Shark Attack Data. (2016). Shark attack data for Western Australia, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.sharkattackdata.com/place/australia/western_australia Shiffman, D. (2014). Keeping swimmers safe without killing sharks is a revolution in shark control. Animal Conservation, 17(4), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12155 Simpfendorfer, C. (1993). The Queensland Shark Meshing Programme: Analysis of the results for Townsville, North Queensland. In Shark Conservation (pp. 71–85). Sydney.
Reference List 265 Simpfendorfer, Colin, Goodreid, A., & McAuley, R. (2001). Size, Sex And Geographic Variation in the Diet of the Tiger Shark, Galeocerdo Cuvier, From Western Australian Waters. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 61(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011021710183 Singer, P. (1985). In defence of animals. Blackwell: Oxford. Smith, I. A. (2016). The intrinsic value of endangered species. London: Routledge. Soroka, S., Lawlor, A., Farnsworth, S., & Young, L. (2012). Mass Media and Policy Making. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.snsoroka.com/files/Media&Policymaking.pdf Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. (1977). Constructing Social Problems. California: Cummings. Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. (2001). Constructing Social Problems. New Brunswick: Transactions Publisher. Spellerberg, I. F. (2014). Charismatic Species. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Change (pp. 150–152). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Stephenson, C. (2012). Govt spends another $6.8m on shark mitigation. WA Today. Retrieved from http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/govt-spends-another-68m-on-shark- mitigation-20120927-26mqz.html?rand=1353917723773 Story: Sharks and Rays. (2012). Retrieved 21 October 2015, from The Encyclopedia of New Zealand website: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/sharks-and-rays/page-6 Swart, J. A. A., & Keulartz, J. (2011). Wild Animals in Our Backyard. A Contextual Approach to the Intrinsic Value of Animals. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 185–200. United Nations Environment Programme. (2019). What we do. Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/what-we-do Verhoog, H. (1999). Bio-ethics and the intrinsic value of animals. In Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Animals: Beyond Animal Welfare (pp. 81–97). The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp. Walker, C. (2015). Social Constructionism and Qualitative Research. Journal of Theory Construction and Testing, 19(2), 37–38.
Warren, C. A. B. (1993). The 1960’s State as Social Problem: An Analysis of Radical Right and New Left Claims-Making Rhetorics. In Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
Reference List 266 Weinberg, D. (2009). On the Social Construction of Social Problems and Social Problems Theory: A Contribution to the Legacy of John Kitsuse. The American Sociologist, 40(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/s12108-008-9059-5 Weiner, C. L. (1981). The Politics of Alcoholism: Building an Arena around a Social Problem. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Werry, J. M. (2010). Habitat ecology of the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas, on urban coasts in eastern Queensland, Australia (Griffith University Gold Coast). Retrieved from https://www120.secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/3deb2989-f01b-e9f3-31ef- d370c2ea31b3/1/Werry_2010_02Thesis.pdf West, J. (2014). Shark Attack Theories (pp. 1–11). Retrieved from Taronga Conservation Society Australia website: https://taronga.org.au/sites/default/files/downloads/Shark%20Attack%20Theories.pdf West, J. G. (2011). Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62, 744–754. Wetherbee, B. M., Lowe, C., & Crow, G. (1994). A Review of Shark Control in Hawaii with Recommendations for Future Research. Pacific Science, 48(2), 95–115. Woolaston, K., & Hamman, E. (2015). The operation of the precautionary principle in Australian environmental law: An examination of the Western Australian White shark drum line program. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 32(327), 327–344.
Reference List 267 Appendix 1
Data Collection under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
2016
CSIRO
Reason for approaching agency
This research is concerned with the perceptions of key stakeholders surrounding shark bite incidents and shark hazard mitigation techniques off the WA coastline, with relation to the drum lining that began in January 2014. To develop an understanding of the perceptions of the scientific community the researcher used the CSIRO as a data source for this group of stakeholders. The CSIRO is responsible for research into the population dynamics, taxonomy, ecology and bio-geography of sharks and rays in Australian waters and have specifically “led white shark research in Australia since the early 1990s, tracking individual journeys, identifying habitats and populations, and providing knowledge and advice to management agencies.” (CSIRO, 2015). As white sharks were responsible for the majority of shark bite incidents off the WA coastline in the lead up to the implementation of drum lining programs and were one of the target species of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, the CSIRO are an appropriate source of data for representing the perceptions of the scientific community. Furthermore, the CSIRO was the body tasked with conducting a peer review of the EPA's assessment of the Public Review of the WA SHMDLP 2014 – 2017 and were therefore, involved in the process of reviewing the program. The CSIRO was chosen to be approached for information to compliment the data that was publicly available and represent the perceptions of the scientific community for SP1 and SP2.
Application
An informal enquiry was submitted to the CSIRO via the ‘Contact Us’ link on their website on 12 August 2016. It was requested that they provide information regarding:
1. Correspondence between the CSIRO and all Departments of the WA Government regarding the WA SHMDLP, specifically:
Appendix 1 261 - Department of Premier and Cabinet - WA Office of Science - WA Department of Fisheries - WA Department of Environment - WA Environmental Protection Authority - This request was redirected to the CSIRO Legal Team, who responded 24 days later with a request for a 30-day period to process the request, which ended on 11 October 2016. On 7 October 2016, the researcher received an email from the CSIRO FOI Unit informing her that the Application had been approved and 13 documents had been released, either in full or edited versions. It was determined, by the CSIRO, that parts of documents 1 to 13 were exempt pursuant to s 47F of the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) and that parts of document 10 were irrelevant to the scope of the request and were therefore deleted, pursuant to s 22 of the FOI Act 1982 (Cth).
The application submitted to the CSIRO yielded 13 documents in either full, or edited versions. Document 1 was an email chain divided into 28 parts regarding the Expression of Interest of the CSIRO in conducting the Peer Review of Shark Drum Line Program. The remaining twelve documents are a combination of letters, emails and reports regarding the Public Environmental Review and Peer Review Report of the WA SHMDLP, including terms and conditions and release dates pertaining to the PER. All correspondence was between the CSIRO and various members from the OEPA.
Department of Environment
Reason for approaching agency
The Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) played a crucial role in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 because they were tasked with granting the WA DPC an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) which enabled white sharks to be pre- emptively caught in WA waters. Furthermore, the DEE is listed as one of the key stakeholders that was consulted by the WA DPC in the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 Review (DoPC, 2014).
Therefore, it was appropriate for the research that the correspondence between the WASG and
Appendix 1 262 the DEE be examined as a way of examining the perceptions of shark hazards and mitigation techniques held by the Federal Government.
Application
An informal application for information was sent to the DEE via the Department’s ‘Online Enquiry’ link on August 12 2016. This application requested:
1. Correspondence between the DEE and the WASG regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
On 15 August 2016, the Department’s FOI Contact officer responded to the request. It was revealed that the documents requested by the researcher had been made available through previous applications under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) and these were sent to the author. The details of the previous requests are:
14 May WA Shark Documents relating to the WA 11 documents Mitigation shark mitigation measure released in full and 2014 6 in part.
26 May WA Shark Documents relating to the 1 document Exemption EPBC exemption on white released in full and 2014 sharks in WA 41 in part.
17 March WA Baited Documents relating to WA 1 document Drum Lines baited drum lines released in part. 2014
3 December Baited drum Documents relating to the 13 documents lines deployment of baited drum released in full and 2014 lines near Wylie Bay Beach 18 in part. WA
Appendix 1 263 This response included a link to the 26 documents that were deemed relevant to the author’s request.
The 26 documents provided by the DEE included a combination of official reports and correspondence, via letters and emails, between various government departments. This included correspondence between the WA Premier and Minister for Environment, DEE and Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) Secretariat, DEE and WA DF and many emails in which the third- party details had been redacted. These documents also included fact sheets and statistics concerning anticipated environmental impacts of drum lining and tourism in WA.
City of Cockburn and City of Busselton
Reason for approaching agencies
This research aimed to collect data that can offer a complete representation of the perceptions of key stakeholders that contributed to the WASG’s decision to implement drum lines in WA waters. While this program was a state government solution to addressing the ongoing shark bite incidents, the research also seeks to determine the perceptions of both Federal, as stated above, and local governments in WA.
The City of Cockburn and the City of Busselton were the first local governments in Western Australia to trail shark barriers as part of the ongoing funding into shark hazard mitigation techniques and research off the WA coastline that began in 2008. In December 2013, a fixed shark barrier was installed at Coogee Beach as part of a four-month trail and in January 2014, the City of Busselton installed a shark barrier net for recreational ocean users at Old Dunsborough Beach. The installation and operation of these barriers required the City of Cockburn and City of Busselton to correspond and negotiate with WASG departments, as well as the Shark Hazard Advisory Research Committee (SHARC).
SHARC was established to encourage and support research into the development of innovations aimed at protecting the State’s beachgoers (Department of Fisheries, 2012). Therefore, by collecting data from the City of Cockburn and City of Busselton, the researcher sought to develop an understanding of local government perceptions of shark hazard mitigation techniques
Appendix 1 264 in WA from two LGs who corresponded with the WASG Departments responsible for implementing drum lines, while also engaging with the scientific community. Furthermore, the timeline of the fixed barriers at Coogee Beach and Old Dunsborough Beach align with the operation of drum lining and therefore, make the City of Cockburn and City of Busselton even more appropriate to approach for data for the research. Finally, both of these LGs are geographically relevant to the research because Coogee Beach falls within the Metropolitan MMA and Old Dunsborough Beach is located in the SW MMA.
Applications
Informal requests were sent to the City of Cockburn and City of Busselton on 12 August 2016, which included documents regarding:
1. Correspondence between the City of Cockburn (or Busselton) and SHARC; 2. Proposals by the City of Cockburn (or Busselton) to SHARC; 3. Correspondence between the City of Cockburn (or Busselton) and the DF, DT and DE, regarding shark hazard mitigation. On 27 April 2017, a formal application, including $30 fee, was submitted to the City of Busselton for documents pertaining to:
1. Correspondence between the City of Busselton and SHARC; 2. The submission made by the City of Busselton to SHARC for a shark barrier trial in 2013, and; 3. Correspondence between the City of Busselton and the DF regarding shark hazard mitigation in 2013 – 2014. On 3 May 2017, a formal application and fee ($30) was submitted to the City of Cockburn requesting:
1. Correspondence between the City of Cockburn and SHARC; 2. The submission made by the City of Cockburn to SHARC for a shark barrier trial in 2013; 3. Correspondence between the City of Cockburn and the DF, Tourism WA and the DE regarding shark hazard mitigation in 2013 – 2014.
Appendix 1 265 Busselton
The researcher was contacted via voicemail by the FOI Administrations Officer for the City of Busselton on 5 May 2017 regarding the specific date range for the documents requested under the application, to which the researcher responded via email, stating that the start date be 1 January 2013. On 24 May 2017 a phone conversation took place between the same Officer and the author, which resulted in the third-party details being excluded from the conversation. On the 25 May 2017, the Officer emailed a request for an extension to the application from 2 June to 16 June 2017, to which the researcher consented. On 7 June 2017, the Officer requested the researcher’s details be released to a third-party prior to the application being approved, to which the researcher consented. On 12 June 2017, the researcher was emailed a Notice of Decision and the link to 30 documents. The researcher was charged $94 in photocopying fees for the release of these documents.
Cockburn
The researcher received an acknowledgement letter by mail dated 11 May and the Notice of Decision and documents were sent via postal mail on 12 June 2017. The researcher was granted access to all documents that were discovered on the Council’s repositories that fell within the scope of the application. The documents were edited in accordance with the WA Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) to satisfy requirements pertaining to privacy and confidentiality and were only edited in a way that removed personal information and details pertaining to other individuals. No extra charges were levied for the processing of the request. The application yielded 185 pages of documents that were deemed relevant to the request.
The application submitted to the City of Cockburn yielded 44 individual documents ranging from 16 April 2012 to 14 November 2014 (with one document from 2017 that referred to the authors FOI Application and was not deemed relevant to the application or research).
Appendix 1 266 Department of Premier and Cabinet
Reasons for approaching agency
As the department primarily responsible for the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, it was crucial that the DPC be approached for data relevant to this research. The researcher approached this agency on two occasions. Initially, an application similar to that discussed previously was submitted to the DEE to determine the perceptions of state and federal government regarding shark hazard mitigation. A follow up application was submitted to uncover perceptions regarding shark population growth, impact on shark bites on tourism and shark hazard mitigation from within various WASG Departments.
Application
The WA DPC was contacted informally via email on 12 August 2016. This informal request asked for:
1. Correspondence between the DPC and the DEE regarding shark hazard mitigation between 2012 - 2014; 2. The application made by the DPC to the DEE for an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). On 27 April 2017, a formal application was submitted to the WA DPC requesting:
1. All correspondence between the DPC and the DEE concerning shark hazard mitigation in WA between January 2012 and December 2014. 2. The application made to the DEE for an exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) that would allow for the operation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On 16 May 2017, the DPC contacted the researcher via email requesting that the application be confined by:
• Reducing the timeframe of the application to a period of 6 months (it was noted that no documents had been identified prior to 12/12/2013); • Removal from scope of draft correspondence; including draft documents relating to the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth) referral/application from the DPC to the DE;
Appendix 1 267 • Removal from scope of documents with notations of ‘cabinet in confidence’ and ‘prepared for parliament’; which are normally exempt from release under Clause 1 of the FOI Act 1982 (Cth); and • Removal of Microsoft Outlook Calendar meeting appointments.
The researcher consented to these confinements and on 6 June 2017 the DPC requested an extension to the timeline due to a third party who needed to be consulted being on leave. The timeline for the processing of the request was extended to 19 June 2017. On 16 June 2017 the researcher was informed of the approval of the request and received 31 documents via post approximately a week later. This included a combination of edited and unedited documents.
On 28 August 2017 the researcher approached the DPC with a second informal application for documents. This was done in response to the feedback from other government agencies that is discussed in more detail below. This application requested evidence to support the claims made by Premier Barnett in January 2014 concerning the 'silent majority' supporting the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 (PerthNow, 2014). Furthermore, information concerning the tourism industry and independent tourism operator's positions on the policy was sought, as Tourism WA, the Office of Science (OS) and DF had stated that they did not hold this data. The researcher also enquired about whether the DPC received public submissions or submissions from independent WA tourism operators in the lead up to the announcement of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 on 10 December 2013 or in the few months following the announcement.
It was stated that the researcher specifically sought submissions between the dates of June 2013 and June 2014, relating to:
1. “Perceptions of shark population growth or otherwise; 2. Impact that the increase of shark bite incidents had on the business of independent tourism operators; 3. The need for changes (both for calls for increases to current techniques or reductions) to shark hazard mitigation techniques”
An officer from the DPC FOI Unit responded via email the following day providing links to the
Appendix 1 268 PER, PRR and WA SHMDLP 2013-2014 Review documents. An attachment was also included that had been released through a previous application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) and discussed consultations undertaken by the WASG with a range of stakeholders and interest groups that were relevant to the request.
The first application to the DPC yielded 31 documents that were deemed relevant to the scope of the application. These documents were dated from 12 December 2013 to 8 May 2014 and included 30 documents of correspondence, predominantly between the DPC and DEE with several including third party correspondence and correspondence within the DPC only. The remaining document was a letter of receipt to the DPC regarding the application for exemption from the EPBC Act 1999 (Cth). The documents ranged from single emails on one-page documents, to a 25-page document.
The attachment in the second application to the DPC included six documents adding to a total of 17 pages. This included a discussion paper from the City of Bunbury, which was a local government within the WA SHMDLP MMAs, from November 2013. It also included two documents of handwritten notes, two documents of typed notes and one letter submitted by a member of the public.
Environmental Protection Authority
Reason for approaching agency
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is an independent board that performs various functions, including conducting environmental impact assessments, and provides advice to the State. It was appropriate for the EPA to be approached for data for this research because they were involved with the WA SHMDLP at various stages. They initially determined it was not necessary to conduct an environmental impact assessment of the WA SHMLP trial policy as it stood from 2013-2014 but did conduct an assessment of the recommended continuation of the WA SHMDLP 2014 - 2017, of which they recommended against.
Appendix 1 269 Application
On 26 April 2017, the researcher made a phone call to the FOI Unit of the WA EPA. The purpose of the call was to determine what documents the WA EPA possessed that would be relevant to the research that the researcher could use to make specific requests in a formal application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), with the intention of making the request more likely to be approved, due to being less likely to impede on the regular tasks and resources of the WA EPA. The conversation with the WA EPA FOI Officer did not result in the researcher being made aware of any relevant documents to specifically refer to in a formal application. However, the researcher was subsequently emailed the links to two publicly available documents. These included a media statement regarding the EPA’s recommendation not to continue the use of drum lines in WA and the EPA’s assessment of the WA SHMDLP 2014 - 2017.
The researcher had a second phone conversation with the same FOI Officer at the WA EPA regarding the statement made in the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 Review document, which referred to the WA EPA receiving over 20,000 public comments regarding the implementation of drum lines during a seven day period from 14 February to 20 February, 2014.
After requesting access to these public comments, the researcher was informed that these were submitted via 450 emails, approximately 10,000 comments submitted to the EPA Consultation Hub and the remainder were forwarded from the WA Conservation Council. The researcher requested either the 10,000 comments submitted to the Consultation Hub or the 450 emails and was informed that both requests were too large and would be rejected in a formal application on the grounds that the request was too large and would not be reasonable given the time and resources of the Department. The researcher was also sent an email by the FOI Officer containing a summary of the public concerns and EPA responses from publicly available document: ‘Response to Submissions on Environmental Public Review’.
Despite this, on 27 April,2017, the researcher submitted a formal application with the WA EPA requesting:
1. 450 emails (half of which were pro forma) sent to the WA EPA during the seven-day submission period following the proposal for the WA SHMDLP 2014
Appendix 1 270 – 2017; 2. Correspondence between EPA and DPC regarding the WA SHMDLP.
This was responded to the by the same FOI Officer who referenced more publicly available documents and stated that ‘If you decide to proceed, I would like to point out due to the scope of your request – especially the 450 submissions, it would take a considerable amount of time and resources, especially where third party consultation is involved. If you still wish to proceed with your FOI access application, I suggest that you reconsider and reduce it to a more manageable request.’
The researcher agreed to reduce the request from 450 emails (half of which were pro forma) to only the emails that were not pro forma (approximately 225) and that third-party details were not required, thereby reducing the amount of time and effort involved in processes the application. This was responded to by the request of a conference call between then FOI Officer and the Head of the FOI Unit for the EPA. During the conference call, the scope was narrowed again to examine the public comments to the Shark Drum Line Development Management and Associated Services Referral, rather than the WA SHMDLP because this was the policy that the seven-day public comment specifically addressed.
On 9 June 2017, the FOI Officer emailed the researcher informing her that it was possible to get the original unedited 10,476 public comments submitted to the Consultation Hub in an unedited spreadsheet. On 19 June 2017, the Officer left a voicemail for the researcher to return her call and emailed to inform the researcher that a third party requested her details prior to the documents being released. The researcher consented and the EPA released a spreadsheet with unedited 10,476 comments from the public regarding the initial placement of drum lines off the WA coastline and 14 edited documents containing correspondence between the EPA and DPC. This included the 450 emails submitted to the EPA regarding the WA SHMDLP and correspondence between the EPA and DPC.
(On 26 April, following the phone conversation with the EPA FOI Officer who stated that it would not be likely to obtain large quantities of submissions from the public, the researcher contacted WA Conservation Council via telephone. The researcher explained the purposes of the intended research and was informed that the WA Conservation Council member on the phone
Appendix 1 271 had been involved in work surrounding the use of drum lines in WA. The researcher asked if it would be possible to obtain the 12,000 (approx..) comments forwarded to the EPA that were referred to in the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 Review document. The researcher was informed that the Conservation Council member would follow this up and contact the researcher at a later date.
On 5 May, the researcher sent a follow up email outlining the purposes of the research and restating the request. This was replied to on the same day with the information that the 'anti- shark campaigner' that worked on this project was no longer working with the Conservation Council WA and more questions about the purposes of the research and data required were asked. The researcher immediately replied to this email with a more in-depth summary of the research proposal and required data. This was never replied to. Several weeks later, the Conservation Council was telephoned again, after failing to respond, and the researcher was again informed that they would be in contact, shortly, with more information.
The Conservation Council WA did not contact the researcher at any later time. However, as the EPA had provided access to the Consultation Hub public comments at this time, it was deemed unnecessary to follow this up as ample data on public opinion had been collected).
Tourism WA
Reason for Approaching Agency
During the ongoing discussions surrounding shark bites incidents in WA, the WA tourism industry was repeatedly cited as a key stakeholder and industry that would suffer as a direct result of the increase in shark bite incidents off WA (See PerthNow, 2011). Therefore, it was deemed appropriate for the researcher to collect data that might be representative of the tourism industry perspectives on shark bites incidents and shark hazard mitigation techniques, specifically the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Tourism WA is the agency established under the Western Australian Tourism Commission Act 1983 (WA) and is a statutory authority under the portfolio of the Minister for Tourism. Tourism WA is responsible for marketing, event management and destination development, with the goal
Appendix 1 272 of increasing tourism within the state of Western Australia. Furthermore, it conducts research into tourism figures and statistics and publishes reports on visitor profiles and statistics. While these are publicly available, the agency was approached regarding correspondence with the DPC, as the agency responsible for the program, and correspondence with independent tourism operators. This was done for the purposes of attempting to develop an understanding of the perspectives held within the tourism industry regarding shark bite incident prevalence and mitigation techniques.
Application
On 26 April 2017, Tourism WA was approached via email with an explanation of the purposes of the research and an informal request for:
1. Correspondence between Tourism WA and the DPC, regarding the impact of shark bites on tourism in WA and the need for further shark hazard mitigation techniques to be employed;
2. Correspondence between independent tourism operators and Tourism WA, with regards to the impact of shark bite incidents in WA on the business of tourism operators. On 18 May 2017, a Corporate Communications Officer from Tourism WA replied to the email, stating “Your current request is not valid under FOI; however we have taken the opportunity to search for relevant documents that may assist with your research. After conducting broad searches across our holdings we have established that Tourism WA does not hold specific data evidencing the impact of shark bite on tourism.”
Two links were provided to publicly available tourism reports and it was stated that: “Much of the feedback from surfing and water-based tour operators has been anecdotal with very little hard evidence of impact on visitors in the immediate aftermath of an attack.”
The researcher determined that anecdotal feedback from surfing and water based tourism operators fell within the scope of the research and, on 31 May 2017, requested more information regarding this feedback for the purposes of specifically requesting it in a formal application. On
Appendix 1 273 6 June 2017, this was replied to with a statement that informed the researcher that the feedback that had been referred to had been delivered verbally and that WA Tourism did not have any relevant documents for the intended research. The advice from Tourism WA was to contact the DF, as the agency responsible for managing and implementing measures to reduce shark attacks.
WA Fisheries
Reason for approaching agency
In line with the advice from Tourism WA, the WA DF was contacted regarding potential documents of relevance to the research. In July 2017 the WASG amalgamated the DF with the Department of Agriculture and Food, Department of Regional Development and the staff from nine Regional Development Commissions as part of the WASG’s reforms. The Department that resulted from these reforms is the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD). As these reforms occurred in 2017 and the research is concerned with the DF, as it stood in 2013-14, the application under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) refer to the DF. However, they were processed through the DPIRD.
The Fisheries Division of the DPIRD, formally known as the DF, is responsible for the conservation, shared use and sustainable development of WA’s aquatic resources and their ecosystems. The key service areas of the Division include fisheries management, education and enforcement and research and assessment. Specifically, they are responsible for policy development, licensing and legislation surrounding fisheries in WA. In 2014, the DPC listed the DF as a key stakeholder who was consulted during the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 (WA DPC, 2014). The DF was tasked with conducting a comprehensive risk assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the program, which concluded that the risks were negligible to target and non-target species and the broader marine ecosystems of the MMAs. The DF was also responsible for the operation of the Metropolitan MMA and monitoring the operations of the private fishing company hired to operate the southern MMA. Considering the extensive role that the DF played in the development, operations and assessment of the WA SHMDLP, it was appropriate for this Department to be approached for information relevant to the research.
Appendix 1 274 Application
In June 2017, an informal telephone conversation occurred between the researcher and a FOI Coordinator from the Fisheries Division of the DPIRD. The researcher inquired about potential data relevant to the research for the purposes of making a formal application for information under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) as specific as possible. The FOI Coordinator informed the researcher that relevant submissions were made to the Department via postal mail, email and through the ‘feedback and complaints’ link on the Department’s website. The researcher indicated that she was seeking a large number of submissions for the purposes of gaining a complete representation of public and tourism industry perceptions of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher was informed that a specific number should be requested and the hypothetical example was provided that 1000 submissions would be too many, while 10 would be acceptable. Ten was determined to be unlikely to provide an accurate representation of public and tourism operator perceptions.
On 13 July, 2017, a formal application with fee was submitted to the WA Department of Fisheries. The application requested submissions made to the Department by members of the public and independent tourism operators concerning:
1. Perceptions of shark population growth or otherwise; 2. Impact that the incidence of shark bite incidents has on recreational ocean use; 3. Impact that the incidence of shark bit incidents has on the business of independent tourism operators; 4. The need for changes (both calls for increases to currents techniques and reductions) to shark hazard mitigation techniques; 5. The application requested submissions made electronically only (not those made via postal mail) and between 1 June 2013 and 31 June 2014. On 17 July, the researcher received an email of acknowledgement of the application and payment and a letter stating that the decision on access would be granted by 27 August 2017. Nine days later, on July 26, the researcher received an email from the FOI Coordinator processing the application. The email stated that a preliminary search of the Department's Electronic and Records Management System yielded a significant number of documents that
Appendix 1 275 may fall within the scope of the request and that the request was likely to be denied unless the scope of the application was refined. This is consistent with Section 20 of the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), which states that, if an agency considers the work involved in dealing with an application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of agency resources away from other operations, the agency must take reasonable steps to help the applicant reduce the amount of work needed to deal with it. The researcher was instructed that suggestions on how to further refine the scope of the request would be made following an additional document review.
On 4 August 2017, the FOI Coordinator emailed the researcher suggesting the documents be refined by:
• Removal of ministerial correspondence, leaving only the submissions made through the 'Feedback and Complaints' link on the Department's website as remaining within the scope; • Reducing the timeframe of the application to a period of three months; • All personal information of third parties being deleted from the requested documents; • All prescribed details of agency officers being deleted from the requested documents; and • All identifying business information, including business names, being deleted from the requested documents. The Coordinator also enquired about whether the researcher requested tourism operators and public submissions only, or also sought Departmental responses to these submissions. On 10 August, the researcher advised that she was agreeable to the recommended refinements and did not seek responses to public and tourism operator submissions, at this stage. The revised timeframe of the application to this Department was 24 September 2013 to 24 December 2013. This timeframe was chosen because it covers the three months leading up to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
On 23 August, the researcher received an email informing that the review of documents under the revised scope of the applications predominantly yielded submissions to the Department from the public and mostly opposed the policy. No submissions from tourism operators could be identified. The researcher stated that these submissions would be appropriate for the research and
Appendix 1 276 consented to an extension of the timeline in processing the application, to 26 September, as requested by the Officer. On the same day, the researcher contacted the FOI Coordinator by telephone to discuss the aims of the research and whether more appropriate documents could be identified that would support the claim made by Premier Barnett that the 'silent majority' supported the policy in a radio interview in 2014. These documents were specifically requested because the researcher aimed to conduct research that was representative of the whole public and, to date, the data collected almost completely represented public opposition to the policy. It was revealed that further searches of the Department's ministerial correspondence did not yield any appropriate documents and that DPIRD did not have any documents to support this claim.
On 15 September 2017, the researcher received a Notice of Decision under Section 30 of the FOI Act 1992 (WA) by email. Full access was granted to copies of 104 documents determined to fall within the scope of the revised application. Information removed from the documents for being 'outside ambit' included personal information of third parties and prescribed details of agency officers. The following week the researcher received photocopies of the documents in the mail. No additional charges were levied for access to these documents.
The application made to the Fisheries Division of the DPIRD yielded 104 documents. Each of the documents contained an individual submission from a member of the public to the DF from 2013 that was submitted through the 'Feedback and Complaints' link of the DF website. The information provided in each submission included the 'subject' of the submission and the content of the submission under the 'Details of your enquiry/feedback' heading. The submissions range from one sentence in length to approximately ten sentences, with the large majority being three to four sentences long. The is a valuable source of data because it is the only data that was able to be collected regarding public perception of shark attacks not specifically related to specific hazard mitigation programs, such as the WA SHMDLP or fixed barrier enclosures in Cockburn (as all other public opinion data is).
WA Local Governments
Initial examinations of the documents collected from the City of Busselton and the City of Cockburn suggested that the perceptions of LGs in WA, regarding shark related hazards and
Appendix 1 277 hazard mitigation techniques differed from those expressed by the WA DPC. In order to investigate this further, the researcher submitted applications (formal and informal) to LGs in WA in which a shark bite incident had occurred in the five years prior to the cessation of the WA SHMDLP (April 2008 – April 2014). The information pertaining to these attacks was collected from 'Shark Attack Data' at. In addition to the LGs identified through this technique, the WA DPC listed that the LGs that were consulted as stakeholders for the WA SHMDLP 2014-2017 Public Environmental Review. These identified two additional councils, which had not suffered a shark bite incident but had been deemed relevant stakeholders by the DPC in the development of the policy. These were the City of Bunbury and the Shire of Harvey. However, in a table discussing ‘matters raised’ by stakeholders in the PER, neither of these Councils are listed as having been responsible for raising any issues. Therefore, neither of these councils were approached by the researcher for documents under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth).
The search revealed 13 LGs (and the Rottnest Island Authority) in which shark bite incidents had occurred in the five years prior to the cessation of the trial in 2014. Informal applications for information were sent to all of these 14 agencies. However, it was determined, on a case by case basis, which of these government agencies the researcher would approach with a formal application and payment of the application fee. For example, as will be discussed in more detail below, the City of Albany, Shire of Manjimup, Shire of Dandaragan, Shire of Exmouth and Shire of Carnarvon were all deemed to be located at a significant geographic distance from the MMA’s and areas impacted by the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 and therefore, formal applications (including payment of the $30 application fee) were not made to these Councils. Furthermore, the RIA stated that the application made to them would need to be made to the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions instead and the City Busselton provided significant information without the requirement of a formal application, meaning that formal applications (and fee payment) were only made to five local councils.
City of Albany
Reason for approaching agency
On 10 May 2008 a non-fatal bite incident occurred within the jurisdiction of the City of Albany. The incident was attributed to a white shark and the victim, who was swimming at the time,
Appendix 1 278 received severe lacerations to their left leg. On the 28 October 2010 a non-fatal shark related incident occurred within the jurisdiction of the City of Albany, in which a spear-fisher was head- butted by a shark of an unidentified species and no injury was sustained. The City of Albany is located towards the southern-most point in WA and does is not in the vicinity of the MMAs of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. However, the researcher approached the City of Albany in the hopes that it could contribute to a broader understanding of the perceptions of LGs surrounding shark bite incidents.
Application
On the 29 December 2017 the researcher submitted an informal application for information to the City of Albany via email. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal incident that occurred on 10 May 2008, 2. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal incident that occurred on 28 October 2010, 3. Correspondence within the City of Albany and between the City of Albany and DPC or DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014. On 24 January 2018, the City of Albany responded to this application. It was stated that a search of city records for documents that fall within the scope of the application had been conducted and that no documents were discovered. Therefore, in line with section 26 of the FOI Act 1992 (WA), the researcher was provided with written information informing that reasonable steps had been taken to locate relevant documents and that they were found to either not exist or that they were not in the possession of the City of Albany. Furthermore, it was decided that the City of
Albany was located at a significant distance from the areas impacted by the WA SHMDLP 2013- 2014 and that the relevance to the research was diminished by this. Therefore, the City was not contacted further in regard to the research.
City of Rockingham
Reason for approaching agency
On the 27 December 2008 a snorkeler was fatally injured by a white shark in the City of
Appendix 1 279 Rockingham's jurisdiction. A second snorkeler was bitten by a white shark near the City of Rockingham on the 30 October 2010 and the snorkeler sustained a bite to the torso and buttocks. The City of Rockingham lies at the southern point of the Metropolitan MMA of the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 making the attitudes of this LG toward shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques highly relevant to the research.
Application
On the 29 December 2017 the City of Rockingham was informally approached for information, via email. The application for documents requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the fatal incident that occurred on 27 December 2008 at Port Kennedy Beach 2. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal incident that occurred on 30 October 2010 off Garden Island 3. Correspondence within the City of Rockingham and between the City of Rockingham and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher received a reply, via email, from a Governance Coordinator at the City of Rockingham on the 4 January 2018 informing that an application fee of $30 was required for the application to be processed. On 9 January 2018 the researcher submitted the formal application form provided by the City of Rockingham and made a $30 payment via credit card, over the phone.
On 12 January 2018, a letter was sent via postal mail to the researcher acknowledging the application and payment with the statement that it would be dealt with as soon as possible or within the 45 days required under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth). On 20 February the City provided their Notice of Decision with one document deemed relevant to the search. The document consisted of email correspondence regarding a media response to shark attacks and beach closures.
Appendix 1 280 Shire of Manjimup
Reason for approaching agency
On the 6 June 2010 a shark bite incident took place in the Shire of Manjimup, in which a shark of an unidentified species inflicted severe lacerations to the right knee of a surfer. The researcher approached the Shire of Manjimup in order to further her understanding of the perceptions of local councils in WA where shark related incidents had occurred.
Application
On 29 December 2017 the researcher made an informal application for documents to the Shire of Manjimup requesting:
1. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal incident that occurred on 6 June 2010 at Conspicuous Beach, 2. Correspondence within the Shire of Manjimup and between the Shire of Manjimup and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP that commenced in January 2014 A Senior Administrations Officer responded to this application by requesting a phone conversation in order to determine the Shire's relevance to the research. It was also stated that the application could not proceed without payment of the $30 application fee. It was subsequently decided that the Shire of Manjimup was located significantly south from the MMAs, therefore reducing the relevance to the research, especially given that the bite incident was non-fatal. Therefore, this application was not pursued.
Shire of Augusta-Margaret River
Reason for approaching agency
On 17 August 2010 a white shark fatally injured a surfer and on 23 November 2013 a second surfer was fatally injured by a white shark in the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River. The Shire of Augusta Margaret River is the only WA LG to have suffered two white shark fatalities in the five years leading up to, and during, the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The second fatality occurred shortly prior to the commencement of the program and is regularly mentioned in the WASG reports that discuss the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. This makes the perceptions surrounding
Appendix 1 281 shark related hazards and shark hazard mitigation techniques, held by the Shire, particularly relevant to the intended research. Furthermore, it geographically falls within the south-west MMA, further contributing to the importance of approaching this Council for information. In addition, while the Shire is not listed in the PER as an agency that raised any matter with the DPC in stakeholder consultation, the Margaret River Board Rider Association have been listed as one of the main stakeholders concerned with the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014, suggesting at least a group within this community was interested in the program.
Application
On 29 December 2017 the researcher sent an informal email application for documents to the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the fatal incident that occurred on 17 August 2010 at Cowaramup Bay; 2. Correspondence regarding the fatal incident that occurred on 23 November 2013 at Gracetown; 3. Correspondence within the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River and between the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On the same day, an FOI Officer responded to the email informing the researcher that the application would not be considered valid until a payment of $30 had been made. On 1 January 2018 the researcher requested an alternative payment method to those listed on the form, which included credit card payment in-person or cheque via mail. On 2 January 2018 the FOI Officer stated that the 'only way is by cheque or over front counter' (despite alternatives being listed on the Shire's website). On 10 January 2018 the researcher submitted a formal application form and cheque for $30 via postal mail.
On 7 March 2018 the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River posted a Notice of Decision and 15 documents to the researcher. These documents were edited to have personal information redacted and it was suggested by the Shire that the researcher contact the DPC and DF for documents relating to the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The documents received through this application
Appendix 1 282 were predominantly a combination of emails from within the Council and from the DF.
Shire of Dandaragan
Reason for approaching agency
On 23 October 2010 a non-fatal shark bite incident occurred at Wedge Island, off the coast of the Shire of Dandaragan, in which a kite-surfer sustained lacerations to the lower leg. Therefore, the Shire of Dandaragan was approached for documents to contribute to the researchers understanding of LG perceptions in WA surrounding shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques.
Application
On 29 December 2017 the researcher submitted an informal email application the Shire of Dandaragan requesting:
1. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal incident that occurred on 23 October 2010 at Wedge Island; 2. Correspondence within the Shire of Dandaragan and between the Shire of Dandaragan and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On 4 January 2018 the Executive Manager of Development Services responded to this request informing that the "Wedge Island and the Wedge shack settlement are on Crown land and managed by the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions. The Shire at the time did not have any management of this locality". On 10 January 2018, the same staff member informed the researcher that preliminary searches had only revealed one piece of correspondence relevant to the application for documents and that a fee would be required for more detailed searches to be conducted.
The location of this bite incident is approximately 132km north of the Metropolitan MMA, therefore, reducing the relevance of the Shire's perceptions surrounding shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques to the research. In addition, the Shire or Dandaragan suggested that they did not have any involvement in the management of shark hazard mitigation at Wedge
Appendix 1 283 Island. Therefore, it was determined that this request would not be pursued through the formal application process.
The informal application to the Shire of Dandaragan yielded one piece of email correspondence with an attachment. The email, from the Director of Innovative Science at the Industry, Science and Innovation Division of the Department of Commerce, is addressed to the Chief Executive Office at the Shire of Dandaragan and invites the Shire to attend a presentation on shark enclosures. The attached document is the Consultation Paper titled 'A Trial of Beach Enclosures as a Measure to Mitigate Shark Attack in Western Australia'.
Shire of Exmouth
Reason for approaching agency
On 12 February 2011 a snorkeler's arm was bitten by an unidentified shark species at Exmouth. Therefore, the Shire of Exmouth was approached by the researcher in the hopes of contributing to the broader understanding of local government perceptions surrounding shark related hazard and mitigation techniques in WA.
Application
1. On 1 January 2018 in informal email application was made to the Shire of Exmouth for: 2. Correspondence regarding the non-fatal shark bite incident that occurred on 12 February 2011 at Exmouth; 3. Correspondence within the Shire of Exmouth and between the Shire of Exmouth and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP that commenced in January 2014. The researcher also enquired about the City’s shark sighting/attack response protocols, whether any public surveys had been conducted regarding shark related hazards or mitigation techniques and whether any additional information about the City’s position towards shark hazard mitigation could be provided.
On 2 January 2018, a Shire of Exmouth staff member responded informing the researcher that
Appendix 1 284 the request had been forwarded to the Compliance and Ranger Services Manager for response. On 9 January 2018, the researcher sent a follow up email because no further contact had been made from the Shire of Exmouth.
On 11 January 2018 the same staff member sent a separate email informing the researcher that the CEO and senior ranger was investigating the application and the researcher was encouraged to contact him directly. On 12 January 2018, this contact was approached, who informed the researcher, on the same day, that 'the attack you speak of took place within the Ningaloo Marine Park and is controlled entirely by DBCA (Parks) so the Shire had very little to do with this incident'. It was stated that 'a lady was snorkeling and wanted a better photo of a sleeping white tip reef shark, so she dived down and pulled it out from under the coral to get a better shot. Subsequently the shark bit her on the arm but obviously not an incident likely to invoke public outcry or the implementation of drum lines in a class A Marine Park'. It was suggested that the DPW be contacted for further information about this incident and that the Shire would be unlikely to provide any additional documents of relevance to the research.
On 15 January 2018 a second staff member replied to the first email chain stating that a search had been conducted of 'Shire of Exmouth records system for documents/correspondence relating to sharks' and that only four relevant documents had been revealed, which were attached to the email.
It was subsequently decided that the application to the Shire of Exmouth would not be pursued further because the Shire did not have jurisdiction over the location of the bite incident. Furthermore, the incident was suggested to be provoked, reducing its relevance to the research and the Shire of Exmouth is located approximately 1200km north of the Metropolitan MMA, also reducing the relevance of this local council's perceptions surrounding sharks to research regarding the WA SHMDLP.
The informal application to the Shire of Exmouth yielded four documents relating to sharks. One of these was specific to recreational shark fishing and the remaining three consisted of correspondence between the Shire of Exmouth and the Fisheries Division and Shark Response Unit of the DPIRD, concerning the 'Sharksmart' notification and response system.
Appendix 1 285 City of Busselton
Reason for approaching agency
As previously discussed, the City of Busselton had been contacted in 2016 and 2017 during the research. However, the previous application was specific to the City’s application for a trial of a shark enclosure and it was subsequently determined that it was appropriate for the researcher to submit a second application to this LG.
On 4 September 2011 a white shark fatally wounded a body boarder at Bunker Bay in the City of Busselton. As mentioned previously, Busselton is located within the South-west MMA, and as it is the location of a shark bite fatality, the perceptions of shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques held by this LG are of particular relevance to the research. Therefore, the City of Busselton was approached, for a second time, for documents relating to the research.
Application
On 29 December 2017, the researcher sent an informal email application for documents, under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth), to the FOI/Legal Administration Officer that was dealt with through the previous application to the City. The application requested:
1. The ity’s response to the fatal shark bite incident that occurred at Bunker Bay on 4 September 2011. 2. Documents of correspondence between the City of Busselton and the DPC and DF regarding that WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On 9 January 2018, the researcher received a voicemail from this Officer requesting a phone conversation about the application. The researcher contacted the Officer via telephone on the same day and it was revealed that preliminary searches failed to yield any documents of correspondence between the DPC and City of Busselton regarding the placement of drum lines and that the operations of drum lines was outside of the City’s jurisdiction, meaning that no documents of relevance were identified.
A second email from the Officer, on the same day, referred the researcher to the City of
Appendix 1 286 Busselton minutes dated 14 October 2015 (Item 10.5). It was stated that 'the content of the minutes outlines background and includes adoption of a policy. In addition the minutes from 14 October 2015 refers to previous minutes from 2014 which you can also access. The details contained in the Council minutes may provide you with significant insight/background in relation to the City of Busselton’s position.'.
A preliminary examination of this document suggested that it would be sufficient to aid in developing an understanding of this LG’s perceptions of shark related hazards and mitigation techniques and it was decided that a formal FOI application (with $30 payment) was not necessary.
The documents that were collected through an informal application to the City of Busselton were two publicly available minutes which provided detailed discussions held by the City regarding shark hazard mitigation techniques. While the documents were created following the cessation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 -2014, the FOI Officer indicated that these documents provided an accurate representation on the City’s stance towards the topics both before, and during the operation of the program.
Town of Cottesloe
Reason for approaching agency
On 9 October 2011 a presumed shark fatality (species unidentified) occurred at Cottesloe Beach in the Town of Cottesloe. The Town of Cottesloe is within the Metropolitan MMA and, due to the occurrence of this presumed fatality in the area, it was deemed appropriate for the researcher to approach the Town for documents relevant to the research.
Application
On 29 December 2017, the researcher submitted an informal application for documents via email to the Town of Cottesloe website. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the fatality that is presumed to have occurred on 9 October 2011 at Cottesloe Beach;
Appendix 1 287 2. Correspondence within the Town of Cottesloe and between the Town of Cottesloe and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On 4 January 2014 the researcher received a response from a Senior Project Officer stating that a formal application and payment of a $30 application fee were required in order for the request to be pursued. A formal application and payment of the application fee was made to the Town of Cottesloe on 9 January 2018. On the same day, a letter was posted to the researcher acknowledging the application and payment.
On 28 February 2018 the Council posted their Notice of Decision and 45 documents to the researcher. It was noted that only three of these documents related to the WA SHMDLP 2013 – 2014 and the rest concerned other shark hazard mitigation strategies.
Rottnest Island Authority
Reason for approaching agency
On 22 October 2011 a diver was fatality injured by a white shark off Rottnest Island. Rottnest Island is located 19km west of Fremantle and lies adjacent to, but outside of, the Metropolitan MMA. The Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) was approached for documents relevant to the research because it is geographically close to the area impacted by the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 and was the location of a shark fatality less than three years before the drum lines were deployed.
Application
On 29 December 2017 the RIA was informally approached via email for documents relating to the research topic. Specifically, the researcher requested:
1. Any documents from the RIA that relate to shark bite incident protocols. Specifically, the RIA’s response to the shark fatality that occurred on 22 October 2011. 2. Correspondence with the DF or DPC regarding the WA SHMDLP that commenced in January of 2014 or any documents relating the DPC’s decision to
Appendix 1 288 remove drum lines from the area prior to the Rottnest Channel Swim on 22 February 2014. On 9 January 2018, the researcher sent a follow up email to the RIA because no response had been received. The same day an RIA Marine Facilities Coordinator responded by stating that a 'shark sighting response summary' flow chart was all that could be provided without a formal application being made to the DBCA.
On 17 January 2018 a formal application was made and $30 fee paid and on 2 March 2018 the RIA posted ten documents to the researcher. It was noted that some relevant documents were withheld because they belonged to WA Fisheries, which the researcher was advised to approach directly. The majority, including 32 full pages of content received through this application had been entirely redacted.
Shire of Capel
Reason for approaching agency
On 31 March 2012 a diver was fatality injured by a white shark off Stratham Beach in the Shire of Capel. Stratham Beach is located approximately 17km north of the South-west MMA, making the perceptions of the Shire of Capel surrounding shark related hazards and mitigation techniques particularly relevant to the research. Therefore, the researcher approached the Shire of Capel for documents that could contribute to the development of an understanding of perceptions of LGs in WA, where shark bite incidents had occurred in the lead up to the implementation of the WA SHMDLP.
Application
On 29 December 2017 the researcher made an informal application to the Shire for documents relating to the research. Specifically, the researcher requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the fatality that occurred on 31 March 2012 at Stratham Beach; 2. Correspondence within the SC and between SC and the DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Appendix 1 289 On 15 January 2018 a Governance Officer from the SC replied to the email application for documents stating that 'that the SC has no correspondence concerning a fatality at Stratham Beach in 2012, nor do we have copies of correspondence regarding drum lines. Given this, there does not appear to be much point on you submitting and paying for a Freedom of Information Application'. Considering this information, it was decided that a formal application would not be pursued.
City of Stirling
Reason for approaching agency
On 19 December 2012 a surfer sustained non-fatal lacerations to their torso, from an unidentified shark species, at Trigg Beach in the City of Stirling. Trigg Beach lies within the Metropolitan MMA making the perceptions of the City of Stirling towards shark related hazards and hazard mitigation techniques particularly relevant to the research. Therefore, the City of Stirling was approached for documents that could contribute to the researchers understanding of LG perceptions in WA with regards to the research topic.
Application
On 1 January 2018 the researcher submitted an informal application for information to the City of Stirling via email. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the incident that occurred at Trigg Beach on 19 December 2012 involving a shark, in which no injury occurred; 2. Correspondence regarding the incident that occurred at Trigg Beach 12 November 2013, in which a shark bumped a board and no injury occurred; 3. Documentation relating to shark hazard mitigation protocols in the City of Stirling; 4. Correspondence between the CS and the DF or DPC regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher also enquired about the City’s shark sighting/attack response protocols, whether any public surveys had been conducted regarding shark related hazards or mitigation techniques and whether any additional information about the City’s position towards shark hazard
Appendix 1 290 mitigation could be provided.
On 3 January 2018 an Information Officer from the City of Stirling responded, stating that a formal application form needed to be submitted, along with a $30 application fee for the application to be processed. The application form and fee ($30) were submitted on 9 January 2018. Several days later, a printed receipt of this transaction was received via postal mail. On 24 January 2018, the researcher was emailed a Notice of Decision document from the City with access to three documents.
The formal application yielded three documents. Two of these were Beach Inspector’s Logs dated 12 November 2013 and 19 December 2012, to which partial access was granted. The remaining document was an undated extract from a lifeguard’s manual, to which full access was granted.
City of Greater Geraldton
Reason for approaching agency
On 10 March 2013 a bronze whaler shark caused lacerations to the hand of a spear-fisher off African Reef, off the coast of Geraldton. Therefore, the City of Greater Geraldton was approached for documents in the hopes of contributing the broader understanding of local government perceptions towards sharks in WA.
Application
On 1 January 2018 the researcher sent an informal application for information to the City of Greater Geraldton, via email, requesting documents of potential relevance to the research. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the shark bite incident that occurred on 10 March 2013 at African Reef; 2. Correspondence within the CGG and between the CGG and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher also enquired about the City’s shark sighting/attack response protocols, whether
Appendix 1 291 any public surveys had been conducted regarding shark related hazards or mitigation techniques and whether any additional information about the City’s position towards shark hazard mitigation could be provided.
The application was responded to on 2 January 2018 by a Freedom of Information Coordinator, who stated that she was investigating the application and that a formal application may be required, with payment of the $30 application fee. On 5 January 2018 the FOI Coordinator sent a second response stating that she had conducted searches of the City’s electronic data records management system HP Trim and requested information from the officers from Infrastructure and Ranger Services. She stated that the search was conducting using the key words:
- Shark,
- Shark bite,
- Shark mitigation
- Shark survey
- St Georges beach shark
- Drum line
- Fisheries shark
It was stated that no records were found of:
1. The shark bite incident on 10 March 2013 off African reef
Appendix 1 292 2. public surveys, or,
3. correspondence between CGG and DF regarding the drum line program.
One piece of correspondence was identified that related to evidence of public perceptions of shark related risks to bathers in the region, which is a comment from a member of the public regarding shark fishing off the beach.
The FOI Coordinator informed the researcher that "protocols relating to shark related incidents the City has a standard operating procedure with the actions to be taken by the ranger team when a shark sighting is reported. The procedures include:
- Notifying the police
- Confirm the sighting
- Record details and size of shark - to be provided to Dept. Fisheries.
- Closure of the beach
- Closure period required for beach
- What to do in the event of an attack."
The researcher was also provided with links to websites within the public domain and encouraged to access the ‘Shark hunters Geraldton’ Facebook page and an ABC article about the Geraldton Shark Hunters’.
Four attachments were provided with the email and it was decided that it was not necessary for the researcher to pursue a formal application with the City of Greater Geraldton because it is
Appendix 1 293 located approximately 350kms north of the Metropolitan MMA, reducing its relevance to the research, and because the preliminary searches had not yielded any documents of significant research.
Four documents were attached to the correspondence with the FOI Coordinator from the City of Greater Geraldton and were all publicly available. These included a shark sighting response flow chart, newspaper article, and two public announcements regarding shark sightings. The researcher accessed the Geraldton Shark Hunters Facebook page and followed the link to the ABC article, both of which provided information about recreational catch and release shark fishing in the Geraldton area. It is unclear why this was recommended to the researcher in response to the application for documents relating to shark hazard mitigation.
City of Joondalup
Reason for approaching agency
On 26 October 2013 a diver had a fin torn by a white shark while diving for crayfish off Little Island. Little Island is located within the Metropolitan MMA, increasing the relevance of the local government's perceptions surrounding shark hazards and mitigation techniques, to the research. Therefore, the City of Joondalup was approached for documents that could inform the researcher about this city's position towards shark hazard mitigation and involvement with the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Application
On 1 January 2018 the City of Joondalup was informally approached via email with an application for documents under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth). The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the shark bite incident that occurred on 26 October 2018 in the Joondalup region; 2. Correspondence within the CJ and between the CJ and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher also enquired about the City’s shark sighting/attack response protocols, whether
Appendix 1 294 any public surveys had been conducted regarding shark related hazards or mitigation techniques and whether any additional information about the City’s position towards shark hazard mitigation could be provided.
On 8 January 2018 a customer relations advocate from the City responded, stating that the enquiry regarding the Little Island bite incident had been forwarded to the City’s ranger services and that a formal application and fee was required for the remainder of the application to be processed. On 9 January 2018 the researcher submitted a formal application and paid the relevant fee. On the same day, the Acting Coordinator for the City Rangers informed the researcher that "The City of Joondalup does not have any jurisdiction beyond 200 metres from the waterline and does not directly deal with any shark attack incidents. This would come under the Department of Fisheries and the Water Police". With regards to response protocols, it was stated that "The City of Joondalup is responsible for beach closures including placing out beach closed signage and advice to swimmers in conjunction with the Surf Life Saving Authorities. The Department of Fisheries and Water Police are responsible for any action taken in regard to sharks or shark attacks". Finally, it was revealed that searches for any evidence of public surveys that have been conducted by the City of Joondalup in relation to public perceptions of shark related incidents were unable to be located.
Despite this, a letter of acknowledgment and receipt were posted to the researcher on 15 January 2018, stating that the application would be processed within 45 days. On 22 February 2018 the City provided a Notice of Decision and access to 16 documents.
The informal application to the City of Joondalup yielded one document, which contained information and a flow chart about response protocols following a shark sighting in the area. Of the remaining 16 documents, 14 were dated after the cessation of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014 and refer to the City’s ongoing shark hazard mitigation techniques, including a shark barrier.
Shire of Carnarvon
Reason for approaching agency
In the five years prior to the cessation of the WA SHMDLP in April 2014, four non-fatal shark
Appendix 1 295 bite incidents have occurred in the Shire of Carnarvon. On the 23 April 2011 a spear fisherman had his heel bitten by a reef shark while washing dead fish, on the 19 January 2012 a snorkeler received lacerations to the forearm from a tiger shark, on 28 August 2012 a surfer received lacerations to the arm and torso from an unidentified shark species and on 24April 2014 a reef shark caused minor injuries to a spear-fisherman. Due to this high number of shark bite incidents occurring in the jurisdiction of one particular LG, the researcher determined that it was appropriate to approach the Shire of Carnarvon for documents that might contribute to the researcher's broader understanding of LG perceptions of shark related hazards and mitigation techniques in areas where bite incidents have occurred.
Application
On 1 January 2018 the researcher submitted an informal application for documents under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth) via the online enquiry form on the Shire of Carnarvon's website. The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the four non-fatal shark attack incidents that occurred on the dates listed above; 2. Correspondence within the Shire of Carnarvon and between the Shire of Carnarvon and DPC and DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. The researcher also enquired about the Shire's shark sighting/attack response protocols, whether any public surveys had been conducted regarding shark related hazards or mitigation techniques and whether any additional information about the Shire's position towards shark hazard mitigation could be provided.
On 2 January an FOI Coordinator with the Shire of Carnarvon stating that "the Shire of Carnarvon’s coastline and marine management is conducted by the Department of Parks and Wildlife with the Shire of Carnarvon assisting, if requested only. This is usually putting up signage only, if required". It was stated that the information required would need to be collected from the DPW.
The application with the Shire of Carnarvon was not pursued further due to the large geographical distance from the MMAs (859km) and the fact that the Shire did not appear to have
Appendix 1 296 significant involvement in shark hazard mitigation.
Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions
Reason for Approaching Agency
The Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) was cited throughout correspondence with LGs as the governing body responsible for many of the shark bite incident locations. Therefore, it was determined appropriate to approach this Department to determine whether they possessed documents that may contribute to the research and contribute to the researchers understanding of the roles that different government agencies had in the development of the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014.
Application
On 12 January 2018 the DBCA was approached informally via email for documents under the FOI Act 1982 (Cth). The application requested:
1. Correspondence regarding the shark fatality that occurred off Rottnest Island on 22 October 2011; 2. Correspondence regarding the shark bite incident that occurred on the 12 February 2011 in the Ningaloo Marine Park; 3. Correspondence regarding the shark bite incident that occurred on 28 October 2013 in Turquoise Bay; 4. Correspondence between the DBCA and the DPC or DF regarding the WA SHMDLP 2013 - 2014. On the same day the researcher received a response from a FOI Coordinator with the DBCA stating that the "application is invalid as you have not submitted the required $30 application fee and you have not provided sufficient information to enable the information which is the subject of your request to be identified pursuant to section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1992".
Appendix 1 297 On 17 January 2018 the researcher submitted a formal application form and payment to the Department. An acknowledgement letter and receipt, addressed 18 January 2018, was posted to the researcher. The DBCA provided access to 48 documents on 14 March 2018 which ranged in date from 22 October 2011 to 30 April 2014.
Appendix 1 298