Drum line (shark control)

Last updated

A drum line is an unmanned aquatic trap used to lure and capture large sharks using baited hooks. They are typically deployed near popular swimming beaches with the intention of reducing the number of sharks in the vicinity and therefore the probability of shark attack. Drum lines are often used in association with shark nets, which results in shark mortality. However SMART drum lines can be used to move sharks, which greatly reduces shark and bycatch mortality. The use of drum lines has been successful in reducing shark attacks in the areas where they are installed. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The topic of shark culling became an international controversy and sparked public demonstrations and vocal opposition, particularly from environmentalists, animal welfare advocates and ocean activists. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Contents

Description

The drum line consists of a floating drum (a barrel) with two lines attached to it. One line is attached to an anchor on the sea floor, while the other features a large baited shark hook. The drum is filled with a rigid polyurethane foam, which keeps it buoyant and prevents it from being stolen for use as a storage vessel. [10] To attract sharks, the hooks are baited with red mullet and false jacopever. Since the objective of the drum line is to prevent sharks from approaching popular beaches (and not to attract them) only about 500 grams of bait is added to each hook. Thus only sharks from the immediate vicinity are attracted to the baits. [11]

History

Drum lines were deployed to prevent shark attacks in Queensland, Australia in 1962. [12] They continue to be used in Queensland and continue to capture sharks (and also capture by-catch species such as dolphins). [13] [14] They were then used by KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa), and continue to be used there. [15] They were used intermittently in Western Australia in an "imminent threat" policy, having previously been used there for 4 months in 2014. [16] [8] The use of drum lines in Western Australia ceased in March 2017 following a change in the state government. [17] From January 2019 "SMART" drum lines were deployed off the Western Australian coast, [18] [19] however the trial ended in 2021. [20] Since 2014 Réunion Island has used drum lines in conjunction with long lines and shark barriers. [21]

Advantages

Permanent or semipermanent deployment of shark-fishing gear off high-use beaches (which includes drum lines) has been successful in reducing the incidence of shark attack at protected beaches. [1] [22] While shark nets and drum lines share the same purpose, drum lines are more effective at targeting the three sharks that are considered most dangerous to swimmers: the bull shark, tiger shark and great white shark. [10] Drum lines physically attract sharks from within the immediate vicinity using bait [23] while shark nets allow the sharks to swim over or around them. [24] Additionally, the bycatch, or unintended catch, of drum lines is considerably less than that of shark nets. [25]

SMART drumlines can also be utilised to move sharks, which greatly reduces mortality of sharks and bycatch. In the New South Wales North Coast SMART drumline trial (Australia) 99% of targeted sharks and 98% of other animals caught were released alive. [26]

Drum lines and long lines have also been used with great success in Recife, Brazil where the shark attack rate dropped by 97%. [2] [27] The purpose of the program was to relocate sharks 8 kilometres from beaches. [28] [29] [30]

Disadvantages

Recife, Brazil data, October 2007 to December 2011 [31]
Common nameTotal
caught		 % released
alive
Spotted eagle ray 4100%
Marine catfish 24475%
Blacknose shark 2612%
Silky shark 250%
Bull shark 450%
Blacktip shark 333%
Caribbean reef shark 10%
Marine turtles 4100%
Barred grunt 367%
Sting rays 1493%
Atlantic goliath grouper 13100%
Tiger shark 3482%
Nurse shark 13099%
Moray eels 1118%
Snappers 667%
Devil rays 650%
Brazilian sharpnose shark 10%
Total:506 [2] 77%

Drum lines can result in the death of sharks and bycatch. During a shark attack mitigation program off Recife, Brazil over a 4-year period (October 2007 to December 2011) the total sharks caught, as well as bycatch and the percentage released alive is shown in the table. [2] [31]

During the same period in Recife, 44 potentially aggressive sharks were also hooked, including 34 tiger sharks and 4 bull sharks. The overall survival rate of potentially aggressive sharks was 70% (relocated and released). [2] Out of all the animals caught, 22.7% of them died. [31] Unlike in Queensland, the objective of the Recife program was to relocate potentially aggressive sharks. [31]

The combination of drum lines and shark nets does not directly lead to extinction, but they also may not give the population room to recover from being endangered of extinction. [32]

Using drum lines that results in the death of sharks negatively affects the marine ecosystem. [33] [34] The Australian Marine Conservation Society said, "the ecological cost of drum lines is high, with 97% of sharks caught [in Queensland] since 2001 considered to be at some level of conservation risk." [35] Jessica Morris of Humane Society International says, "sharks are top order predators that play an important role in the functioning of marine ecosystems. We need them for healthy oceans." [36]

Drum lines have been claimed to be an ineffective strategy to keep people safe, while simultaneously resulting in the death of thousands of sharks and other wildlife in the marine ecosystem. [33] [37] Western Australia Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly said "there is currently no scientific evidence to show that drumlines reduce the risk of a [shark] attack". [38] [note 1]

The ongoing shark control program in Queensland has been criticised. [12] This program has been called a cull. [6] From 1962 to the present, the government of Queensland has targeted sharks in large numbers by using drum lines [40] — this program has also led to the death of large numbers of other animals such as dolphins; it has also resulted in the mortality of endangered hammerhead sharks. [14] [41] [37] Queensland currently operates the largest shark culling program in Australia. [35] In the first 11 months of 2013, 633 sharks were captured in Queensland — more than 95% of those sharks died. [42] From 2013 to 2014, 667 sharks died in Queensland's "shark control" program, including great white sharks and critically endangered grey nurse sharks. [35] From 2014 to 2015, 621 sharks died in Queensland. [43] From 2017 to 2018, 218 sharks were killed, including 75 tiger sharks and 41 bull sharks. [44] From 2001 to 2018, a total of 10,480 sharks died on drum lines in Queensland. [45]

In 2015, the following was said about bycatch in Queensland's "shark control" program (which uses drum lines):

[Data] reveals the ecological carnage of [Queensland's] shark control regime. In total, more than 8,000 marine species with some level of protection status have been caught by the Queensland Shark Control Program, including 719 loggerhead turtles, 442 manta rays and 33 critically endangered hawksbill turtles. More than 84,000 marine animals have been ensnared by drum-lines and shark nets since the program began in 1962 [...] Nearly 27,000 marine mammals have been snared. The state’s shark control policy has captured over 5,000 turtles, 1,014 dolphins, nearly 700 dugongs and 120 whales, all of which are federally protected marine species. [46]

Shark and bycatch mortality from drum lines is minor compared to Commercial fishing. On average 15 Great white sharks are caught by the NSW and Queensland shark control programme each year, compared to 186 caught in Australia from other activities. [47] Australia's commercial shark fishing industry is catching over 1200 tonne of shark each year, [48] of which 130 are Great white sharks. [47] The NSW prawn trawling industry alone results in 64 tonne of shark as bycatch each year, [48] with two thirds dying. [49] Tuna and swordfish longline fishing off the coast of South Africa reported 39,000 to 43,000 sharks died each year between 1995 and 2005. [49] Sharksavers estimates that in total 50 million sharks are caught unintentionally each year as bycatch by the commercial fishing industry. [50]

There is also evidence of dolphins stealing bait on numerous occasions, thus rendering the drum lines useless. [3] [51]

Smart drumlines

On Réunion regular operation of "SMART" (Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time) [52] drum lines began in August 2015 and they are used in conjunction with bottom long lines. A "SMART" drum line is based on the traditional drum line design, but it includes technology that can alert rangers to the capture of marine life, who can then attend the device if sea conditions permit. In Reunion, fishermen usually attend the drum lines within 90 minutes of an alert and 90 per cent of animals caught on the hooks survive. [53] There are now around 15 of these smart-drumlines along the coast of Réunion Island. [54]

Since December 2015 the New South Wales State government commenced trials of "SMART" drumlines, [52] as part of an expansion of shark attack mitigation strategies along the New South Wales North coast. [55] Twenty five drumlines were deployed at Ballina and Evans Head beaches (15 off Ballina; 10 off Evans Head). [55] Once a target shark is caught it is tagged with a transmitter, relocated approximately 1 km offshore and released. Non-targeted animals are immediately released. In addition, the tagged sharks provide an alert to the community if they pass within range of a series of listening stations located along the coast. [56] Since the start of the trial 230 target sharks (209 great white, 12 tiger, and 9 bull sharks) were caught with 99% of targeted sharks and 98% of other animals released alive. [26] [56] The trial has been effective in reducing shark attacks [57] [58] [59] and has been expanded to other regions of New South Wales. [56] As of 2022, the New South Wales government states that its SMART drumlines are set daily 500 metres offshore and in water between 8 and 15 metres deep. They are returned to shore at night. If an animal is detected taking the bait, the signal is responded to within 30 minutes. [60]

In August 2018 a 12-month trial of "SMART" drumlines along Western Australia's South West coast, near Gracetown was announced. [61]

Environmental groups oppose "SMART" drum lines; they say that "SMART" drum lines will not reduce the risk of shark attacks, and may actually make beaches more dangerous; they also say "SMART" drum lines are dangerous to sharks. [39] In 2018, more than 7,000 Western Australians signed a petition demanding that Western Australia's "SMART" drum line trial be abandoned. [39] Humane Society International stated the following about "SMART" drum lines in Western Australia: "HSI expects the SMART drumline trial to result in the inevitable suffering and death of marine wildlife, and therefore opposes the decision to commence the trial." [62] Tooni Mahto, a spokesman for the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said the following about "SMART" drum lines: "Some species can't cope with being released after being caught [on "SMART" drum lines]. For example hammerhead sharks, when caught on hooks get very, very stressed." [63]

On the 17 January 2019 the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia determined that the "SMART" drumline trial would have minimal impact on the environment and therefore did not warrant a formal assessment. [64]

Controversy

Great white sharks were targeted by Western Australia's controversial shark culling policy. Great white shark south africa.jpg
Great white sharks were targeted by Western Australia's controversial shark culling policy.

Prior to 2014, drum lines were only utilised on Australia's eastern coast and in South Africa where the numbers of attacks reduced dramatically. [3] [1] In 2014, the Western Australian government reacted to seven fatal shark attacks in the years 2010-2013 and installed drum lines along around 200 km [65] of its 20,000 km (12,000 mi) long coastline [66] (around 1%). The policy has been the subject of national and international protests, coming under fire from marine conservationists and animal welfare advocates and their supporters. The policy is commonly referred to as the Western Australian shark cull. Following a change in the West Australian state government in March 2017, [17] the newly elected Premier Mark McGowan and Fisheries Minister David Kelly have stated that they do not support the previous governments' shark plan. [67] However, in August 2018, following continual shark attacks, the West Australian state government reversed their position and announced a 12-month trial of "SMART" drumlines along Western Australia's South West coast, near Gracetown. [19]

Drum lines have been criticised on animal rights grounds, not only for their negative effect on the environment and the mortality of endangered species, but also for their non-scientific and speciesist approach. [7] [8] [9] [34]

A number of people opposed to the Queensland's shark-killing program have sabotaged various drum lines throughout Queensland to save sharks, despite the risk of being fined. [68]

The current shark mitigation program in Queensland has been criticized by environmentalists, conservationists, and animal rights advocates — they say Queensland's shark mitigation program is unethical and harms the marine ecosystem. [35] [37] [7] [36] [33] Queensland's shark mitigation program has been called "outdated, cruel and ineffective". [37] The government of Queensland currently captures sharks in the Great Barrier Reef using 173 drum lines; in 2018, Humane Society International Australia filed a lawsuit (court challenge) requesting that the drum lines be removed there. [45] The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in January 2019, and in April 2019 the Tribunal ordered that sharks no longer be culled in the Great Barrier Reef based on the evidence that capturing sharks makes no difference to swimmer safety. [69] A trial of non-lethal drumlines in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is underway. [70]

See also

Note

  1. ↑ After Dave Kelly said this, the Western Australian government decided to implement a "SMART" drum line trial; Kelly said in November 2018, "Hopefully at the end of the trial we will get a scientific basis for making an assessment as to whether or not these ['SMART'] drum lines actually make our beaches safer." [39]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark</span> Infraclass of predatory cartilaginous fish

Sharks are a group of elasmobranch fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Modern sharks are classified within the clade Selachimorpha and are the sister group to the Batoidea. Some sources extend the term "shark" as an informal category including extinct members of Chondrichthyes with a shark-like morphology, such as hybodonts. Shark-like chondrichthyans such as Cladoselache and Doliodus first appeared in the Devonian Period, though some fossilized chondrichthyan-like scales are as old as the Late Ordovician. The earliest confirmed modern sharks (selachimorphs) are known from the Early Jurassic around 200 million years ago, with the oldest known member being Agaleus, though records of true sharks may extend back as far as the Permian.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Great white shark</span> Species of large lamniform shark

The great white shark, also known as the white shark, white pointer, or simply great white, is a species of large mackerel shark which can be found in the coastal surface waters of all the major oceans. It is the only known surviving species of its genus Carcharodon. The great white shark is notable for its size, with the largest preserved female specimen measuring 5.83 m (19.1 ft) in length and around 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) in weight at maturity. However, most are smaller; males measure 3.4 to 4.0 m, and females measure 4.6 to 4.9 m on average. According to a 2014 study, the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above previous estimates, making it one of the longest lived cartilaginous fishes currently known. According to the same study, male great white sharks take 26 years to reach sexual maturity, while the females take 33 years to be ready to produce offspring. Great white sharks can swim at speeds of 25 km/h (16 mph) for short bursts and to depths of 1,200 m (3,900 ft).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conservation in Australia</span>

Conservation in Australia is an issue of state and federal policy. Australia is one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world, with a large portion of species endemic to Australia. Preserving this wealth of biodiversity is important for future generations. 25% of Australia is managed for conservation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Longline fishing</span> Commercial fishing technique

Longline fishing, or longlining, is a commercial fishing angling technique that uses a long main line with baited hooks attached at intervals via short branch lines called snoods or gangions. A snood is attached to the main line using a clip or swivel, with the hook at the other end. Longlines are classified mainly by where they are placed in the water column. This can be at the surface or at the bottom. Lines can also be set by means of an anchor, or left to drift. Hundreds or even thousands of baited hooks can hang from a single line. This can lead to many deaths of different marine species. Longliners – fishing vessels rigged for longlining – commonly target swordfish, tuna, halibut, sablefish and many other species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bycatch</span> Fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally

Bycatch, in the fishing industry, is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while fishing for specific species or sizes of wildlife. Bycatch is either the wrong species, the wrong sex, or is undersized or juveniles of the target species. The term "bycatch" is also sometimes used for untargeted catch in other forms of animal harvesting or collecting. Non-marine species that are caught but regarded as generally "undesirable" are referred to as rough fish or coarse fish.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark attack</span> Attack on a human by a shark

A shark attack is an attack on a human by a shark. Every year, around 80 unprovoked attacks are reported worldwide. Despite their rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks, such as the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916, and horror fiction and films such as the Jaws series. Out of more than 500 shark species, only three are responsible for a double-digit number of fatal, unprovoked attacks on humans: the great white, tiger, and bull. The oceanic whitetip has probably killed many more shipwreck and plane crash survivors, but these are not recorded in the statistics. Humans are not part of a shark's normal diet. Sharks usually feed on small fish and invertebrates, seals, sea lions, and other marine mammals. A shark attack will usually occur if the shark feels curious or confused.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark net</span> A submerged barrier that protects swimmers from shark attacks

A shark net is a submerged section of gillnets placed at beaches designed to intercept large marine animals including sharks, with the aim to reduce the likelihood of shark attacks on swimmers. Shark nets used are gillnets which is a wall of netting that hangs in the water and captures the marine animals by entanglement, however only around 10% of catch is the intended target shark species. The nets in Queensland, Australia, are typically 186m long, set at a depth of 6m, have a mesh size of 500mm and are designed to catch sharks longer than 2m in length. The nets in New South Wales, Australia, are typically 150m long, set on the sea floor, extending approximately 6m up the water column, are designed to catch sharks longer than 2m in length. Shark nets do not create an exclusion zone between sharks and humans, and are not to be confused with shark barriers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cetacean bycatch</span> Accidental capture of porpoises, whales and dolphins

Cetacean bycatch is the accidental capture of non-target cetacean species such as dolphins, porpoises, and whales by fisheries. Bycatch can be caused by entanglement in fishing nets and lines, or direct capture by hooks or in trawl nets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Culling</span> Process of segregating organisms in biology

Culling is the process of segregating organisms from a group according to desired or undesired characteristics. In animal breeding, it is removing or segregating animals from a breeding stock based on a specific trait. This is done to exaggerate desirable characteristics, or to remove undesirable characteristics by altering the genetic makeup of the population. For livestock and wildlife, culling often refers to killing removed animals based on their characteristics, such as their sex or species membership, or as a means of preventing infectious disease transmission.

Environmental issues in Australia describes a number of environmental issues which affect the environment of Australia and are the primary concern of the environmental movement in Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grey nurse shark conservation</span> Conservation management of grey nurse sharks

One of the first shark species to be protected was the grey nurse shark. The biology, distribution and conservation of this species are dealt with in the following paragraphs with a main focus on Australia as it was here it first became protected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact of fishing</span>

The environmental impact of fishing includes issues such as the availability of fish, overfishing, fisheries, and fisheries management; as well as the impact of industrial fishing on other elements of the environment, such as bycatch. These issues are part of marine conservation, and are addressed in fisheries science programs. According to a 2019 FAO report, global production of fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic animals has continued to grow and reached 172.6 million tonnes in 2017, with an increase of 4.1 percent compared with 2016. There is a growing gap between the supply of fish and demand, due in part to world population growth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark attacks in Australia</span>

The Australian Shark-Incident Database has recorded that between 1791 and April 2018 there were 1,068 shark attacks in Australia with 237 of them being fatal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board</span>

The KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board (KZNSB), previously the Natal Sharks Board and Natal Anti-Shark Measures Board is an organisation that maintains a "shark control" program off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa, at 37 places. The purpose of the nets and drum lines is to reduce the number of shark attacks. It was founded as a statutory body in 1962, when the city of Durban's netting operations were extended to other parts of the coast in the then Natal Province. It is headquartered in uMhlanga, north of Durban.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Australian shark cull</span> Former policy to reduce sharks attacks

The Western Australian shark cull is the common term for a former state government policy of capturing and killing large sharks in the vicinity of swimming beaches by use of baited drum lines. The policy was implemented in 2014 to protect human swimmers from shark attack following the deaths of seven people on the Western Australian coastline in the years 2010 to 2013. National public demonstrations opposing the policy attracted international attention to the issue. In September 2014 the seasonal setting of drum lines was abandoned following a recommendation made by the Western Australian Environment Protection Authority. From December 2014 to March 2017, the special deployment of drum lines was permitted in cases where sharks were deemed to present a serious threat to public safety. This policy allowed the government of Western Australia to kill "high-hazard" sharks it found to be a threat to humans; the policy was criticized by senator Rachel Siewart for damaging the environment. In March 2017 the use of drum lines was abandoned by the newly elected West Australian state government. In August 2018 following continual shark attacks the West Australian state government reversed their position and announced a 12-month trial of "SMART" drumlines along Western Australia's South West coast, near Gracetown.

A shark barrier is seabed-to-surface protective barrier that is placed around a beach to protect people from shark attacks. Often confused with shark nets, shark barriers form a fully enclosed swimming area that prevents sharks from entering. Shark barrier design has evolved from rudimentary fencing materials to netted structures held in place with buoys and anchors. Recent designs have used plastics to increase strength, versatility and to reduce the environmental damage of bycatch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seal culling in South Australia</span>

Seal culling in South Australia was strongly advocated for in 2015 in response to increasing interactions of Arctophocaforsteri, the indigenous long-nosed fur seal, with the state's fishing industry. In the 19th century, both fur seals and Australian sea lions were hunted for their hides. During the 20th century, seals were sometimes culled on the assumption that they were competing with fishermen. As of 2018 seal culling is illegal, but remains a topic of public debate. All pinnipeds in South Australia remain fully protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 as listed Marine Mammals. As of 2016, there were an estimated 100,000 long-nosed fur seals in South Australian waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Middleton Beach shark barrier</span>

Middleton Beach shark barrier, also referred to as the Albany shark barrier and the Ellen Cove shark barrier, is a shark barrier to prevent sharks entering the main swimming area at Ellen Cove at the southern end of Middleton Beach, a popular swimming beach in Albany in the Great Southern region of Western Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark attack prevention</span> Means to reduce the risk of shark attack

There are a range of shark attack prevention techniques employed to reduce the risk of shark attack and keep people safe. They include removing sharks by various fishing methods, separating people and sharks, as well as observation, education and various technology-based solutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shark culling</span> Sanctioned killings of sharks

Shark culling is the deliberate killing of sharks by government authorities, usually in response to one or more shark attacks. The term "shark control" is often used by governments when referring to culls. Shark culling has been criticized by environmentalists, conservationists and animal welfare advocates—they say killing sharks harms the marine ecosystem and is unethical. Government officials often cite public safety as a reason for culling. The impact of culling is also minor compared to bycatch with 50 million sharks caught each year by the commercial fishing industry.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Curtis; et al. (2012). "Responding to the risk of white shark attack: updated statistics, prevention, control, methods and recommendation. Chapter 29 In: M. L. Domeier (ed). Global Perspectives on the Biology and Life History of the White Shark". CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Retrieved 18 January 2020.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Hazin, F.H.V.; Afonso, A.S. (28 November 2013). "A green strategy for shark attack mitigation off Recife, Brazil". Animal Conservation. 17 (4): 287–296. doi:10.1111/acv.12096. hdl: 10400.1/11160 . S2CID   86034169.
  3. 1 2 3 "A Report on the Queensland Shark Safety Program" (PDF). State of Queensland. March 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-01-23. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  4. ↑ "Shark Nets, Drumlines, and Safe Swimming". KwaZulu Natal Sharks Board. Archived from the original on 2014-01-28.
  5. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia (December 2017). "Senate Report:Shark mitigation and deterrent measures" (PDF): 77. Retrieved 25 March 2018.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. 1 2 "Sharks - Marine Science Australia". Ausmarinescience.com. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  7. 1 2 3 "Queensland | Overview". Seashepherd.org.au. Archived from the original on 2017-08-23. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  8. 1 2 3 Calla Wahlquist (12 February 2015). "Western Australia's 'serious threat' shark policy condemned by Senate". The Guardian . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  9. 1 2 Meyer, Carl (11 November 2013). "Western Australia's shark culls lack bite (and science)". Theconversation.com. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  10. 1 2 Dudley, S.F.J.; Haestier, R.C.; Cox, K.R.; Murray, M. (1998). "Shark control: experimental fishing with baited drumlines". Marine and Freshwater Research. 49 (7): 653–661. doi:10.1071/MF98026.
  11. ↑ "Drumlines Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). KwaZulu Natal Sharks Board. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-02-15.
  12. 1 2 "Has Queensland really saved lives by killing thousands of sharks?". Brisbanetimes.com.au. 2014-02-21. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  13. ↑ "Drumlines Capture Hundreds of Sharks in Queensland". The Australian . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  14. 1 2 Watson, Matt (25 August 2015). "Dolphins, rays among hundreds of non-targeted animals killed on Queensland shark nets and drum lines, figures show". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  15. ↑ Angela Pownall (2014-06-10). "Drum lines part of life in South Africa for 50 years". The West Australian . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  16. ↑ Milman, Oliver (23 October 2014). "WA abandons shark culling program, but reserves right to kill again". The Guardian . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  17. 1 2 Jacob Kagi (12 March 2017). "WA election: Mark McGowan confronts 'enormity of task' facing Labor government". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 12 May 2017.
  18. ↑ "SCIENTIFIC NON-LETHAL SMART DRUMLINE TRIAL". Sharksmart. Western Australian Government. Retrieved 27 April 2020.
  19. 1 2 "Sharks to be caught on SMART drum lines off WA's South West after Labor U-turn". ABC News. 14 August 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
  20. ↑ "WA shark drumline trial canned after only two white pointers caught over two years". ABC News. 12 May 2021. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
  21. ↑ "Reunion Shark Nets Snatch Victory From Jaws of Ruin". The Australian . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  22. ↑ Dudley, S.F.J. (1997). "A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa)". Ocean & Coastal Management. 34 (34): 1–27. Bibcode:1997OCM....34....1D. doi:10.1016/S0964-5691(96)00061-0.
  23. ↑ McPhee, D.P. (August 2012). "Likely effectiveness of netting or other capture programs as a shark hazard mitigation strategy in Western Australia" (PDF). Fisheries Occasional Publication. 108. Perth, Western Australia: Department of Fisheries. ISBN   978-1-921845-51-2. ISSN   1447-2058 . Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  24. ↑ Celia (21 September 2009). "Australian Shark Control Programs Indiscriminately Catch Marine Life". Marine Science Today. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  25. ↑ "2011 Annual Report". KwaZulu Natal Sharks Board. p. 21. Archived from the original on 2014-08-19. Retrieved 2018-07-26.
  26. 1 2 "NSW North Coast SMART drumline data". NSW Government: Department of Primary Industries. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  27. ↑ "Fact Check: Are smart drum lines just a PR exercise?". Abc.net.au. 3 March 2016. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  28. ↑ "Alternatives to drum lines and shark nets". Seashepherd.org.au. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  29. ↑ "Humane Strategy Reduces Shark Attacks". Wiley.com. 4 August 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  30. ↑ "Drones v Sharks". The Economist. 31 October 2017. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  31. 1 2 3 4 Hazin, F. H. V.; Afonso, A. S. (2013-11-28). "Agreenstrategy for shark attack mitigation off Recife, Brazil". Animal Conservation. 17 (4). Wiley: 287–296. doi: 10.1111/acv.12096 . hdl: 10400.1/11160 . ISSN   1367-9430. S2CID   86034169.
  32. ↑ "Do the nets and drumlines really have a measurable impact on shark populations?". removethenets.com. 2 May 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-06-11. Retrieved 2010-02-10.
  33. 1 2 3 Alana Schetzer (8 May 2017). "Sharks: How a cull could ruin an ecosystem". Science Matters. University of Melbourne – via Pursuit.
  34. 1 2 Chloe Hubbard (30 April 2017). "No Shark Cull: Why Some Surfers Don't Want to Kill Great Whites Despite Lethal Attacks". NBC News.
  35. 1 2 3 4 "Shark Culling". marineconservation.org.au. Archived from the original on 2018-10-02. Retrieved September 28, 2018.
  36. 1 2 Morris, Jessica (December 8, 2016). "Shark Nets – Death Traps For Marine Animals". hsi.org.au. Archived from the original on October 2, 2018. Retrieved September 28, 2018.
  37. 1 2 3 4 Phillips, Jack (September 4, 2018). "Video: Endangered Hammerhead Sharks Dead on Drum Line in Great Barrier Reef". ntd.tv. Archived from the original on September 19, 2018. Retrieved September 18, 2018.
  38. ↑ Mackenzie, Bruce (August 4, 2018). "Sydney Shark Nets Set to Stay Despite Drumline Success". swellnet.com. Archived from the original on 2018-09-21. Retrieved September 28, 2018.
  39. 1 2 3 https://www.9news.com.au/2018/11/29/21/48/shark-drumlines-wa-thousands-sign-petition-calling-for-end-of-practice 9news.com.au. Environmental activists demand WA shark drum line trial be abandoned. Elizabeth Creasy. November 29, 2018. Retrieved December 22, 2018.
  40. ↑ "About the Campaign:Sea Shepherd Working Together With The Community To Establish Sustainable Solutions To Shark Bite Incidents". seashepherd.org.au. Archived from the original on 2018-04-08. Retrieved September 28, 2018.
  41. ↑ Forrest, Alice (2014-09-10). "Shark Nets in Australia – What Are They and How Do They Work?". sealifetrust.org. Archived from the original on 2018-09-19. Retrieved September 18, 2018.
  42. ↑ "Can governments protect people from killer sharks?". ABC News. 2013-12-22. Retrieved 2018-09-27.
  43. ↑ Burke, Gail (August 21, 2015). "621 Sharks Killed Off Queensland Coast Through Control Program". abc.net.au. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  44. ↑ Donaghey, Kathleen (September 25, 2018). "Whitsunday Locals Resist Shark Culls After Two Attacks". The New Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-10-02. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  45. 1 2 "Queensland Government Kills Sharks, Faces Court Challenge". maritime-executive.com. September 4, 2018. Archived from the original on 2018-09-04. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  46. ↑ Thom Mitchell (November 20, 2015). Action for Dolphins. "Queensland’s Shark Control Program Has Snagged 84,000 Animals". Retrieved December 25, 2018.
  47. 1 2 Malcolm, H.; Bruce, B. D.; Stevens, J. D. (September 2001). "A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in Australian Waters". CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart: 93. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
  48. 1 2 Media, Australian Community Media - Fairfax (8 November 2016). "Beyond the panic: the facts about shark nets". Archived from the original on 12 November 2016. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
  49. 1 2 Bettis, Stephanie M. (July 2017). "Shark Bycatch in Commercial Fisheries: A Global Perspective". Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
  50. ↑ "Shark fin trade myths and truths" (PDF). Sharksavers. Retrieved 8 December 2018.
  51. ↑ "Dolphins take the bait from drumline on the Gold Coast". YouTube. 29 January 2014.
  52. 1 2 "SMART Drumlines". NSW Department of Primary Industries. NSW Government. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
  53. ↑ "Fact Check: Are smart drum lines just a PR exercise?". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2 March 2016. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  54. ↑ Andy Guinand (9 August 2016). "Innovative solutions for a global interest". Forbidden ocean in Réunion Island. Ocean71 Magazine. Retrieved 2016-11-26.
  55. 1 2 "North Coast Shark Net Trial: Summary". NSW Department of Primary Industry. NSW Government. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  56. 1 2 3 "SMART Drumlines: Frequently asked Questions" (PDF). NSW Department of Primary Industries. NSW Government. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  57. ↑ Miles Godfrey (1 September 2017). "Shark nets will return to NSW's north coast beaches". Tweed Daily News. Archived from the original on 23 March 2018. Retrieved 23 March 2018.
  58. ↑ Vucovic, Dom (17 March 2018). "SMART drumlines catching great white sharks and protecting swimmers, researchers say". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Commission. Retrieved 21 April 2018.
  59. ↑ Scott, Elfy (2018-07-05). "Here's What You Need To Know About Australia's SMART Drum Lines Being Used To Prevent Shark Attacks". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
  60. ↑ corporateName= (2019-08-25). "SMART Drumlines". www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2022-02-17.
  61. ↑ "Sharks to be caught on SMART drum lines off WA's South West after Labor U-turn". ABC News. 14 August 2018. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
  62. ↑ "The WA Government can't claim SMART drumlines are "non-lethal"". Humane Society International (HSI). 2018-10-26. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
  63. ↑ "More than 500 sharks caught in drumlines, nets off Qld". ABC News. 2018-03-20. Retrieved 2023-10-11.
  64. ↑ Government of Western Australia. "EPA determines SMART drumline proposal would have minimal impact". Environmental Protection Authority. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  65. ↑ "Shark strategy: baited drum lines and killing zones near popular beaches after fatal attacks". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 December 2013.
  66. ↑ "Coastline Lengths". Education. Commonwealth of Australia. November 18, 2010. Archived from the original on 2011-01-22. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
  67. ↑ Daniel Mercer (19 April 2017). "Premier Mark McGowan's shark plan not enough to protect us". The West Australian. Retrieved 13 May 2017.
  68. ↑ Bill Hoffman (2014-05-16). "Beachgoers sabotaging shark bait hooks on Coast". Sunshine Coast Daily . Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  69. ↑ "HSI wins court case against killing of sharks in Great Barrier Reef".
  70. ↑ "Catch alert drumline trial". Queenslan Government Sharksmart. January 2013. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.