Search: Advanced search
Please enter a keyword or ID
What is the RSPCA position on the culling of sharks to reduce shark attacks?
The RSPCA does not support the culling of sharks as a response to public concern over shark attacks on humans. Killing sharks will result in harm to protected and vulnerable wildlife species [that is, the targeted great white shark (1), and also potentially non-target species such as the grey nurse shark (2)], disturb marine ecosystems and cause unnecessary animal suffering. The available scientific evidence to support the claim that killing sharks will reduce the risk to public safety is also not convincing. The RSPCA only accepts the management of wild animals where it is justified, effective and humane: the culling of sharks does not adequately satisfy these criteria.
How and why are sharks culled?
In 2014, in Western Australia a trial was introduced where drumlines with baited hooks were set approximately 1km from the coast in designated ‘marine monitored areas’. When any great white, tiger or bull shark larger than three metres was caught, it was shot and killed. Other marine animals caught on the hooks (including sharks under three metres) were required to be set free unless the hook injuries were severe enough to threaten survival. Commercial fishers were contracted to inspect the drumlines and kill target sharks when caught. They were also required to kill any great white, tiger or bull shark larger than three metres seen within the monitored area.
Over the 13-week trial, 68 sharks were caught and shot: none of them were great white sharks. An evaluation by the state's Environmental Protection Authority recommended that the drumlines be abandoned as it was not effective in achieving its objectives. It has not been re-introduced.
Is shark culling justified?
The RSPCA does not believe that shark culling is justified. There is no evidence that recent increases in shark attacks is a result of increasing shark numbers. Rather, it is consistent with a changing population and human behaviour (3).
Although the average number of unprovoked shark attacks has increased in Australia over recent decades – during the 1990s the national average was 6.5 unprovoked attacks per year but this has risen to 12.5 in this last decade (4) – the risk of human injury or death from a shark attack is still very low.
The Australian Shark Attack File reports that in the last 50 years there have been 50 unprovoked fatalities (average of one per year) from shark encounters in Australian waters. Some years there are no fatalities recorded and in other years there have been up to five, but the average remains around one per year.
The International Shark Attack File (5) reports that with great white sharks, the increase in attacks is a reflection of increased numbers of people using the ocean, as well as enhanced media coverage over the last century. The statistics on shark attacks does not support an increase in the ‘per capita attack rate’ by great white sharks. Furthermore, the percentage of fatalities has decreased due to the establishment of better emergency medical services, greater public knowledge of basic first aid and CPR, and increased education about shark attack. This trend is similar to that observed with all shark attacks (6).
Is shark culling effective?
This is a more difficult question to answer. Historical records from NSW, QLD and South Africa show that regular and consistent shark management using both baited hooks and shark nets is related to a reduction in the number of shark attacks, but these data may not tell the full story. Other factors such as changes in the pattern of recreational water activities or changes in shark food sources may also explain these reductions. Also, only using drumlines off a small number of popular beaches may not have a similar effect as the larger and longer-term programs that also use shark netting. Other data indicates that only counting the number of sharks killed cannot assess the effectiveness of culling. For example, during the 1960s and 70s, shark control programs in Hawaii killed 4,668 sharks but failed to produce measurable decreases in shark attacks.
Whatever approach is taken, for shark management programs to be effective at reducing shark attacks, they must be based on the best available scientific evidence.
It is legal to kill protected sharks?
The RSPCA believes that proper assessment processes must be followed when any proposal is put forward to kill or otherwise harm wildlife, and especially so when one of the target species is vulnerable to extinction. These processes are crucial to ensure that decisions are based on the available science and that conditions are in place to ensure any control measures are carried out in the most appropriate way.
Is shark culling humane?
The humaneness of shark culling is also questionable. Drumlines with baited hooks can cause considerable suffering, especially when sharks are caught for extended periods of time. Non–target sharks (i.e. target species that are less than 3 metres and other shark species that pose no danger to humans) as well as marine animals such as seals, turtles and dolphins can also be caught by the hooks and are likely to be injured or killed. If they are found alive but badly injured, they are required to be euthanased rather than released. Operators must therefore have sufficient knowledge to assess injuries and determine the survival prospect of caught non-target animals.
The shark brain is a relatively small target, thus to kill them with a firearm the shooter must know the position of the brain in the head. Only trained operators with knowledge and experience in killing sharks should be used and it is likely that there are limited numbers of personnel with the relevant experience. To humanely kill a shark using shooting, the most suitable firearm and ammunition must be used in combination with the correct point of aim to achieve a quick and painless death.
What can be done instead of culling?
The RSPCA supports the implementation of justified, humane and effective methods to prevent shark attacks. In addition to environmental assessment, welfare aspects relating to target and non-target species must also be considered when evaluating potential mitigation methods. It is recommended to further develop and implement non-lethal methods that are informed by an understanding of shark biology, behaviour and ecology, including (but not limited to) tagging and tracking alert systems, patrols and surveillance, active and passive electrical repellents (7), innovative sonar systems and eco-barriers. Shark mitigation strategies such as ‘shark spotting’ using beach surveillance (8) and shark awareness programs (9) that educate the public about risk factors that can potentially influence the likelihood of being attacked by sharks (10) also play an important role.
(3) West JG (2011) Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(6):744–754. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF10181.htm
(4) Australian Shark Attack File, Taronga Zoo at: http://taronga.org.au/animals-conservation/conservation-science/australian-shark-attack-file/annual-australian-shark-attack-report-summary-2012
(7) Hart NS and Collin SP (2015) Shark senses and shark repellents. Integrative Zoology 10:38-64 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1749-4877.12095/full
(8) Kock AA, Titley S, Petersen W, Sikweyiya M, Tsotsobe S, Colenbrander D, Gold H, Oelofse G (2012) Shark Spotters: A pioneering shark safety programme in Cape Town, South Africa. In: Domeier ML (ed) Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the great white shark. CRC Press, p 447–466.
(9) For example, see NSW DPI Shark Smart program: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/sharksmart
This website provides general information which must not be relied upon or regarded as a substitute for specific professional advice, including veterinary advice. We make no warranties that the website is accurate or suitable for a person's unique circumstances and provide the website on the basis that all persons accessing the website responsibly assess the relevance and accuracy of its content.