The Queensland government has identified potential locations for its expanded shark control program, … More based on the presence of Surf Life Saving Queensland and data reflecting beach use.<\/p>\n
getty<\/p>\n
Queensland\u2019s Shark Control Program<\/a> is about to undergo its most significant expansion in decades, with the state government pledging nearly $90 million to install new shark nets, increase the number of drumlines and broaden the reach of drone patrols along the coastline<\/a>. The move comes amid growing public concern about unprovoked shark bites<\/a>, especially during peak swimming seasons. \u201cToday\u2019s announcement is big and bold, it puts swimmer safety first,\u201d Minister for Primary Industries Tony Perrett said. \u201cI have said time and time again, the best science must inform our actions when it comes to [the Department of Agriculture and]<\/p>\n Fisheries.\u201d<\/p>\n However, the plan has sparked immediate backlash from scientists, conservationists and environmental law experts, who say the expansion could do more harm than good to both marine life and public safety. Dr Daryl McPhee<\/a>, an Associate Professor of Environmental Science at Bond University<\/a> and one of the country\u2019s foremost experts on shark-human interactions, voiced skepticism about the effectiveness of the program during an interview on 4BC Breakfast: \u201cRegardless of how much the government spends and what it does, there are still likely to be unprovoked shark bites in Queensland waters. [\u2026] We have a lot of sharks and a lot of people going in the water.\u201d<\/p>\n Shark nets and drumlines have been used in Queensland since the 1960s<\/a>, with the aim of the nets being to reduce the local population of large, potentially dangerous sharks (primarily tiger sharks and bull sharks) in areas popular with swimmers and surfers. Yet the effectiveness of these methods has been repeatedly questioned.<\/a> While nets and drumlines may give beachgoers a sense of security, there is limited scientific evidence showing they reduce the overall risk of shark bites.<\/a> In fact, many shark incidents in Australia have happened at netted beaches.<\/a> And Sea Shepherd has warned that the planned upgrades could breach national environmental protections. \u201cUnder Section 43B(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, any enlargement or intensification of the Queensland Shark Control Program could be deemed illegal,\u201d Sea Shepard Australia\u2019s Jonathan Clark said. This is because current methods like gill nets and baited drumlines often catch more than just the targeted sharks. Non-target species such as dolphins, turtles, rays and even endangered sharks frequently get entangled or killed by these devices. \u201cThese lethal methods don\u2019t protect people \u2026 Minister Perrett is ignoring the science, legal risks, and public safety, while intensifying a program that should have been phased out years ago. We need to have the shark nets removed, the drumlines ultimately have to go, and we have to get into the modern ideas of using that technology such as drones, shark barriers, and really good public education.\u201d<\/p>\n The government is expanding the shark control program in a bid to protect swimmers and uphold … More Queensland’s reputation as a tourism destination.<\/p>\n getty<\/p>\n The state government has defended its investment, arguing that the expansion is about using \u201cevery available tool\u201d to keep the public safe. But critics argue that such measures divert attention and resources from alternative strategies that could be more effective and environmentally responsible. Modern drone patrols have been one of the more promising tools added in recent years. Drones allow lifeguards to scan for sharks in real time, alerting people on the beach or in the water if a large animal is detected. However, even drones have limitations. Cloudy skies, rough surf and limited battery life can all reduce their effectiveness. And like any surveillance technology, they rely heavily on well-trained operators and rapid response protocols. Education campaigns, personal shark deterrents like electric anklets and improved signage at high-risk beaches are also often pointed to as lower-impact ways to manage human-shark interactions.<\/p>\n The tension between public safety and environmental conservation is not unique to Queensland, but the scale of the planned investment and the potential for legal conflict makes this a notable strike agaisnst shark conservation in the country. If Sea Shepherd goes ahead and sues the state for environmental breaches (which it says isn\u2019t out of the question), Queensland may find itself forced to scale back or alter its strategy to comply with national law. This situation is just the latest example of just how complex and contentious shark control has become in an era where both beach safety and biodiversity are high public priorities.<\/p>\n In the end, the key question remains: will nearly $90 million worth of nets, drumlines and drones actually make Queensland\u2019s waters safer? Or are we spending millions on an illusion of control in a wild ocean we don\u2019t fully understand? While public demand for visible shark control measures is understandable, science suggests that no approach will fully eliminate risk. As Dr McPhee pointed out, \u201cWe have a lot of sharks and a lot of people going in the water.\u201d Perhaps the most realistic strategy moving forward is one that accepts some level of risk, prioritizes coexistence and focuses on reducing harm to people and the ocean as a whole.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Queensland government has identified potential locations for its expanded shark control program, … More based on the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":153405,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3847],"tags":[186,729,16007,13691,70,541,6296,934,16,15,1717],"class_list":{"0":"post-153404","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-wildlife","8":"tag-australia","9":"tag-nature","10":"tag-ocean","11":"tag-queensland","12":"tag-science","13":"tag-shark","14":"tag-shark-attack","15":"tag-sharks","16":"tag-uk","17":"tag-united-kingdom","18":"tag-wildlife"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114616530694219435","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153404\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153405"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}