An Examination of the Western Australia Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2013 – 2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 .......................................................................................................