• About Us
  • Advertising
  • Support Us
  • Contact Us
  • Community
  • Politics
  • Art & Culture
  • Local Business
  • Environment
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn
The Tawny Frogmouth
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Support Us
  • Contact Us
  • Community
  • Politics
  • Art & Culture
  • Local Business
  • Environment
The Tawny Frogmouth
Home » Online Articles » Culling shark realities
Environment

Culling shark realities

Recent shark incidents have shocked the Northern Beaches community, and it’s left everyone asking questions.
Lawrence ChlebeckBy Lawrence ChlebeckApril 28, 20263 Mins Read
Juvenile hammerhead drowned in Palm Beach shark net
Juvenile hammerhead drowned in Palm Beach shark net
Why did it happen?

The species of concern in NSW are the great white, tiger, and bull sharks. Unlike great whites and tigers, bull sharks inhabit freshwater and coastal areas including rivers, harbours and estuaries. All species migrate seasonally with great whites preferring cool winter waters, while tigers and bulls are more common around Sydney in summer.

It’s important to remember that though extremely traumatic, shark bites remain incredibly rare – though some conditions increase the risk. In January, the extremely heavy rainfall led to runoff and murky water – reducing visibility. These conditions stimulate bull shark feeding behaviour and reduces their ability to visually identify. The combination of factors tragically led to greatly increased risk which saw 4 bites in 48 hours, including a fatality.  

Should we cull bull sharks?

Following these incidents, there have been calls from some in the community for shark culling for public safety. This will not work. Why not?

Firstly, bull sharks are already culled. NSW shares the population with QLD, as it ranges the entire east coast. The QLD Shark Control Program kills an average of 130 bulls a year, and thousands have been killed since the program began in 1962. NSW shark nets and NSW fishers, who are each allowed to kill one bull a day, add to that total. 

Secondly, shark culling does not reduce the risk of shark bite. Bull sharks are migratory. Culling for public safety assumes that a local population can be reduced through fishing. As bull sharks are constantly on the move, there’s no such thing as a “local population”. Additionally, culling actually attracts sharks. The culling methods only serve to attract sharks and stimulate feeding behaviour. Shark nets, baited drumlines, targeted fishing’s use of bait, these all add blood, viscera and animal carcasses to the water, attracting and exciting sharks, making the areas in which culling occurs far more dangerous.

Evidence

Humane World for Animals challenged shark culling in the Great Barrier Reef in court in 2019. The judges found:

Modern scientific consensus is that the risk of shark bite is not related to shark abundance but rather abundance of ocean users and other external factors such as anomalous weather events. We are convinced that shark culling does not reduce the risk of shark attack on the individual – the scientific evidence before us is overwhelming in this regard.

Further, from 1959-1976, Hawaii culled 4,668 sharks. No change in shark bite rate was found.

So, what can be done?

There is no silver bullet, but there are ways to reduce the risk of human-shark interactions:

  1. Grow the drone program: The NSW Government has made a start, but greater coverage will always improve the ability to spot potential risks.
  2. Equip the public with knowledge about conditions that increase/decrease risk, such as weather, time of day, and patrols and surveillance times.
  3. Remove shark nets. Dead and dying wildlife in shark nets attract sharks. The last 3 incidents on the Northern Beaches occurred near shark nets.
  4. Use of verified personal shark deterrents.

These things can be implemented to immediately improve safety. Culling bull sharks might make some people feel better, but it would be at best a placebo, and it may even be counterproductive. Do we want the community to feel safer, or do we want to reduce the risk?

Lawrence Chlebeck is a Marine Ecologist at Humane World for Animals, Australia. Learn more at hsi.org.au 

Conservation Issue 59
Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related Posts

A fair go in this Budget

$200 showers and a $136 gardener

Not a gym. Not PT. Not a class. Why VAMOS has filled up fast!

Comments are closed.

Stories from Past Tawnies

Cover artist… Nicola Woodcock

June 21, 2022

Make your voice heard on 4 December

December 1, 2021

Home Cooking: Scrumptious Mac and Cheese

May 25, 2023

Cover Artist… Brentos 4.0

November 27, 2024

Cover Artist… David Manuell

April 28, 2026

Who First Called it ‘The Office’?

March 28, 2021

Culling shark realities

April 28, 2026

The Lifeline “Spring Clean” 

August 28, 2024

Stop the lies

October 29, 2021

Film Review: The Fabelmans

March 28, 2023

Bazaar Opportunity! Aladdin’s Cave For Sale

August 19, 2021

The page is set for the inaugural Manly Writers’ Festival

February 27, 2024

Book review: the descended and The Voice to Parliament

September 4, 2023

Cover artist… Leigh Binskin

February 27, 2024

Not all yields are created equal

April 27, 2022
Our Mag

Online Articles

Back Issues

Media

Advertising

Advertising

Media Kit

Say Hi!

Contact Us

Support Us

Tip Jar

Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn
© 2026 The Tawny Frogmouth

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.