THERE has been much commotion in the Australian media about the Western Australian government’s plans to introduce drum lines to cull an increasing shark population.
While the ABC has been interviewing experts from around the world about the potential impact of this program on shark populations, I'm yet to hear any mention of the current program that has been in place for decades now off the east coast of Australia.
Indeed just off Lammermoor Beach, near where I live some of the time in central Queensland, you can see yellow plastic floats. They are attached to chains with large hooks and fresh meat designed to lure and kill sharks. 
The local paper proudly announces the kill at the end of each year. A total of 111 sharks were caught off the combined Capricorn Coast beaches of central Queensland in 2013. The breakdown is as follows:
43 bull whalers
23 long-nose whalers
18 tiger sharks
12 blacktip reef whalers
9 spot-tail whalers
3 great hammerheads
2 sandbar whalers
1 bronze whaler
I often walk along Lammermoor Beach but I don’t much swim there. I find the yellow plastic floats off-putting, along with the stingers, stingrays, and I worry about encountering a wandering crocodile. In fact very few people swim at Lammermoor beach so I wonder why they even bother with the baiting program?
The history of the Queensland program is detailed here:
“The Queensland (QLD) Shark Control Program was introduced to the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Cairns in 1962 and was extended to include Townsville and Mackay in 1963. Since then, the Program has been extended to include Rockhampton (Capricorn Coast) (1969), Bundaberg (1973), Rainbow Beach (1974), Tannum Sands (1983) and Point Lookout (1984) (QLD DPI, 2003). There have been frequent changes to the location and configuration of shark control equipment (mesh nets and drum lines) within each of these areas since the Queensland Shark Control Program was implemented in 1962 (Anon, 1998). The most recent major change to the configuration of shark control equipment occurred in 1992 and 1993, following a review of the operation and maintenance of shark meshing equipment in Queensland (Anon, 1992). In 1992 and 1993, mesh nets were replaced with drum lines in many areas, in order to reduce the catch of non-target marine species, such as dugongs, dolphins and whales.
In Queensland, mesh nets and/or drum lines are currently used on 84 beaches, within 10 districts (known as contract areas). The Queensland Government reports that a total of 338 drum lines are deployed across the 10 contract areas and a total of 37 mesh nets are deployed across 5 contract areas (Cairns, Mackay, Rainbow Beach, Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast). Nets are replaced with drum lines during whale migration and turtle seasons in some areas (Anon, 1998). In Queensland, shark control equipment remains in the water the entire year round, except in Cairns and Rockhampton (Capricorn Coast) where equipment is seasonally removed (Anon,1998; Queensland Shark Control Program). Each piece of equipment used in the Shark Control Program is serviced every second day, weather permitting (QLD DPI, 2003). Regular servicing of equipment means that non-target marine species caught on shark control equipment are more likely to be released alive.”
***
Picture of Lammermoor beach with yellow float taken sometime over the last year.
Front page "The Weekend West" (thewest.com.au):
"AT LAST - Drum lines installed to protect Perth beaches" reports P4-5
Photo and cation: "A 2.6m tiger shark is pulled from one of the drum lines off Cottesloe yesterday. It was later released"
If Only Sharks Had A Taste For Greenies
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/01/sharks-taste-greenies/
KuknKat - fascinating but irrelevant to the post topic. Thanks for showing your rightard inability to focus.
Graeme M.......Have you tried "whistling into the wind" ?
GraemeM,
thanks for showing us leftard logic yet again.
You claim in the grand scheme of things that the few deaths from sharks are inconsequential, YET, you seem to think that the small number of shark deaths that will happen on the coasts of Australia are an important issue when the real issue is the Shark Fin trade that kills magnitudes more sharks.
Keep up the good work.
I think you are deliberately misrepresenting my statements. I am not saying that a particular death is insignificant (although the significance or otherwise of a human life is certainly open to debate). I am observing that in this kind of risk assessment, the number of injuries/deaths is part of the equation. If a single human death is significant and not to be tolerated, we should not drive cars. Or play football.
Every day we all make that sort of assessment - I could die driving my car, but I'll take that risk because the number of deaths per road kilometers travelled is pretty low and I reckon I've a good chance of making the trip. But if I don't, well... my family will be upset, but no-one else will be. We take steps to minimise the risk, but no-one is seriously arguing to get rid of cars. Yet the number of deaths on the road far exceeds that from shark attack.
It's a similar story for the question of risk concerning another animal's impacts on our lives. At what point do we say that the other animal's right to life exceeds my right to have a jolly good time? For me, I think it comes when the number of deaths from shark attack is vanishingly small when compared to the number of people using the sea for recreation. I am simply observing that it makes no useful sense to try to eradicate every risk from our environment when that eradication has a out of balance effect on the natural world.
Yes, if sharks suddenly became so prevalent that you couldn't go fishing for fear of being eaten, maybe we could take action. But maybe the action could be to ban fishing? Why is our first response not to limit our pleasures, but to limit other creatures freedoms and lives?
@Gr
I leave this issue alone then.
Any one who can dismiss even a single human death as "insignificant" in the grand scheme of things is not to be argued with.
This sort of thinking (individual sacrifice for the greater good) lead to some nasty outcomes in the past.
PS I fail to see the connection with the road toll?
Re the actual post about Queenslands shark baiting, I didn't know that. I don't think that the fact it is done there invalidates arguing against doing it in WA. But I'd agree that if one opposes it in WA then one should oppose it in Qld. Of course, I know there is Buckley's of doing anything about either.
And of course, the end result will be good. If you aren't a shark.
See, there you go again... Fatuous.
Those deaths are significant to their families. The number of deaths in context is insigfificant.
The rest of your comment - ignorant twaddle. Try again, but this time engage brain.
@Gr
fatuousness?
Wasn't it you who dismissed those deaths as "insignificant"?
Who or what are you?
The self appointed conscience of the world?
Jiminy Cricket himself maybe?