Effectiveness And Ill-Effects Of Shark Nets †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Effectiveness And Ill-Effects Of Shark Nets. Answer: Introduction Shark attack although infrequent is a highly disturbing risk factor with respect to bathing, swimming, surfing and other forms of water sports. Shark nets are protective measures that are used in order to provide protection to individuals in the water and in the beaches. The shark nets instead of acting as a barricade to prevent the sharks from getting very close to the people in the beaches, act as a means of entangling the shark and other marine animals passing by, thereby killing them. Although shark attacks have been reduced in many places after their implementation, yet the effectiveness of the shark nets has been a question as many evidences show that they are more like fishing net that actually cause harm to other marine species rather than reducing the shark attacks on people. The lives of various marine animals are endangered as a result of the shark nets. These animals include turtles, sting rays, dolphins, dugongs, among others. This report focuses on the effectiveness of the shark nets in providing safety for the beach goers. On account of this, it also points out the problems encountered with the using of the shark nets and its impact on the marine life involving the vulnerable species other than the sharks. The report also brings about a comparison of the shark nets and other alternatives. Finally it provides a fruitful human approach towards shark behaviour and control. Analysis What are shark nets? The shark nets are designed with the intention to entangle and trap the sharks. The shark nets function by reducing the numbers of sharks near the beaches, thereby helping to lower the probability of encounters between sharks and humans. This in turn helps to reduce the number of shark attack cases (Gibbs Warren, 2015, pp. 116-124). Shark nets and their effectiveness in protecting the humans in beaches Shark attacks not only costs human lives but also pose an economic threat to the tourism industry. Thus, in order to save human lives and also to prevent an economic threat to the tourism industry, provisions to prevent shark attacks become highly essential (Fish.wa.gov.au, 2012). Shark mesh nets do not act as a barrier, rather it affects the overall abundance of the shark species that may be responsible for attack on humans. According to Shiffman and Hammerschlag, (2016), the shark control programs have been quite successful in reducing the incidence of the shark attacks. From 1900 to 1937, about 13 people have been found to be the victims of the shark attacks, which decreased to 8 over the next 72 years. The meshing is normally large about 50 centimetres wide, thereby allowing small fishes through but entangling the larger ones until they struggle to death. If the meshing is smaller, the sharks would be able to bounce off the net and will live unaffected by the boundary (Brazier, N el, Cliff Dudley, 2012, pp. 249-257). The shark nets are suspended such that there are few meters above the net to allow animals swim over them. Reporting about the effectiveness of the shark nets, Holmes et al., (2012) have stated that a total of about 591 great white sharks have been caught between 1974 and 1988 in the gill nets. The prevalence of the Elasmobranches was the most important prey items. Arguments on the effectiveness of the shark nets According to the new analysis of the data, the shark nets do not reduce the chance of being attacked. CSIRO shark expert Barry Bruce have confessed that shark nets are not barriers and are more like a fishing device as the nets are set at a depth offshore where they do not reach the surface and only come up to few meters from the bottom in 10 meters of the water. Bornatowski, Braga and Vitule, (2014), has analysed the 50 years of data about the mitigation program about the sharks and its coastal population in the New South Wales of England. (Pushaw, 2015, pp. 1962-2014) have argued that there is no relation between the number of sharks out in the ocean and the shark attacks. No statistical significant data could be established between the density of the shark and the number of shark attacks in the localized area of the Sydney beach (Holmes et al., 2012, pp. 38-45). It is to be noted that nets do not discriminate between common and endangered species. Shark nets often cause bycatches, which refers to the entangling and the mortality of the endangered species such as dugongs, sea turtles and whales (Atkins, Cliff Pillay, 2013, pp. 442-449). Hence, the animal welfare groups have questioned on the use of the shark nets. On the contrary, Bornatowski, Braga and Vitule, (2014) have argued that in spite of the presence of nets, bycatches can be controlled by surfing life saving patrols, radio signals, public education on behaviours of shark. The animal welfare groups have also suggested on the use of alternatives such as electric nets and sonar technologies to prevent unwanted by catch. According to Atkins, Cliff and Pillay, (2013), Humpback Dolphins are the vulnerable species that fall victims to the shark nets. They are incidentally trapped in the shark nets in KwaZulu- Natal. A total of 203 bycatches have occurred between 1980 and 2009, due to the shark nets. According to Brazier, Nel, Cliff and Dudley, (2012), shark nets along the cost of Kwazulu Natal coast in 1952 have been effective in catching the logger head sharks. Mortality of the loggerhead sharks had been followed by the green turtles and the leatherbacks. According to Pushaw, (2015), the shark net program that the Queensland government has employed as the shark control program , which actually could not bring down the rates of the shark attacks as most of the catches were juveniles, based on the recorded frequencies of the length. In fact, the Queensland shark control program has recorded a long term mortality of small whales, dugongs and dolphins. Pushaw, (2015) have argued about the gear selectivity of the large mesh nets and the drumlines useful for catching the sharks in the Queens land shark control programs. Catch per unit effort showed that tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier were being caught by the drumlines and smaller green turtles are trapped in the nets. The rays, hammer head sharks and the marine mammals were vulnerable to the nets, whereas higher catch rates of the tiger sharks are observed in the drumlines (Afonso Hazin, 2014, pp. 55-62). Discussing about the shark attacks, Crossley et al., (2014), have proposed the humans to assess the behavioural pattern of the sharks. Although sharks attacks can be traumatizing to the people and it is quite critical for the people to reduce the risks to the maximum level, but then the general public should also understand that there is no magic bullet when it comes to the prevention of any attack (Neff, 2014). He has emphasized on the fact to always swim in groups and to avoid the water after dusk, to avoid water if bleeding, to avoid going in to the water containing sewage as it acts as bait for the fishes, which in turn attracts the sharks (Crossley et al., 2014, pp. 154-165). He had also emphasized upon the fact that although sharks kill humans rarely but about 20- 30 millions of sharks are being fished by humans for commercial and sport fishing (Neff, 2014). According to reports there are many people who use oceans regularly have strongly opposed the killing of sharks, while sm all number of people are in favour and others are ambivalent (Shiffman Hammerschlag, 2016, pp. 401-412). However the group that strongly opposed the killing of the sharks proposed some probable strategies like improving the public education regarding sharks, understanding the risks associated in using the oceans. Sumpton et al., (2011) have stated that drum lines can be more effective in comparison to the shark nets as they contain baiting hooks and suspension of these in the water presume that only large sharks will be attracted to these. Conclusion Many places around the world have applied the shark nets in response to the shark attacks on the surfers and the swimmers. The purpose of these nets is to entangle the sharks to death. Evidences show that the nets actually do not create an enclosed area within which the surfers are protected from the sharks, but rather acts as fishing net causing other vulnerable and endangered species to get caught. Reports also emphasize on the effectiveness of the drum lines over the shark nets. Finally it can be said that key trick to prevent shark attacks is to raise the awareness among the beach goers and to follow the rules and regulations of the oceans. References Afonso, A. S., Hazin, F. H. (2014). Post-release survival and behavior and exposure to fisheries in juvenile tiger sharks, Galeocerdo cuvier, from the South Atlantic. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 454, pp. 55-62, doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2014.02.008 Atkins, S., Cliff, G., Pillay, N. (2013). Humpback dolphin bycatch in the shark nets in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Biological conservation, vol. 159, pp. 442-449, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.007 Bornatowski, H., Braga, R. R., Vitule, J. R. S. (2014). Threats to sharks in a developing country: the need for effective simple conservation measures. Natureza Conservao, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11-18, doi: 10.4322/natcon.2014.003 Brazier, W., Nel, R., Cliff, G., Dudley, S. (2012). Impact of protective shark nets on sea turtles in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 19812008. African Journal of Marine Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 249-257, doi: 10.2989/1814232X.2012.709967 Crossley, R., Collins, C. M., Sutton, S. G., Huveneers, C. (2014). Public perception and understanding of shark attack mitigation measures in Australia. Human dimensions of wildlife, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 154-165, doi: 10.1080/10871209.2014.844289 Fish.wa.gov.au. (2012).Likely effectiveness of netting or other capture programs as a shark hazard mitigation strategy in Western Australia.Fish.wa.gov.au. Retrieved 9 February 2018, from https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop108.pdf Gibbs, L., Warren, A. (2015). Transforming shark hazard policy: Learning from ocean-users and shark encounter in Western Australia.Marine Policy,vol. 58, pp. 116-124, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.014 Holmes, B. J., Sumpton, W. D., Mayer, D. G., Tibbetts, I. R., Neil, D. T., Bennett, M. B. (2012). Declining trends in annual catch rates of the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries Research, vol. 129, pp. 38-45, doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2012.06.005 Neff, C. (2014). Human perceptions and attitudes towards sharks. Sharks: Conservation, governance and management, 107-131. https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=enlr=id=BpzAAwAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PA107dq=effectiveness+of+the+shark+nets+in+preventing+the+shark+attcksots=ikDkfls0essig=mOQ4gTbSsEPFnKxaHGqjoS3uaNE#v=onepageqf=false Pushaw, C. (2015). The impact of the Queensland Shark Control Program on local populations of threatened shark species, pp. 1962-2014, doi: 10.1071/MF97053 Shiffman, D. S., Hammerschlag, N. (2016). Shark conservation and management policy: a review and primer for non?specialists. Animal Conservation, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 401-412, doi: 10.1111/acv.12265 Sumpton, W. D., Taylor, S. M., Gribble, N. A., McPherson, G., Ham, T. (2011). Gear selectivity of large-mesh nets and drumlines used to catch sharks in the Queensland Shark Control Program. African Journal of Marine Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 37-43, doi: 10.2989/1814232X.2011.572335