Since its inception, the Queensland Shark Control Program has been the responsibility of the Department of Primary Industries or the Department of Fisheries (depending on the titles given by the government of the time). In fact, it is a requirement under the Fisheries Act 1994 to have a “Shark Control Program” in Queensland.

Section 3(3) states, “Despite the main purpose of this Act, a further purpose of this Act is to reduce the possibility of shark attacks on humans in coastal waters of the State adjacent to coastal beaches used for bathing.”

Why does a supposed 'beach safety program' sit with those managing fishing and fisheries? Because it is fishing. And that’s all it is. It’s not a safety program.

Shark control was conceived in NSW in the 1930s and implemented in Qld in the early 1960s, when the wisdom of the time was that reducing the number of sharks would reduce the risk of shark bites at beaches. It seems reasonable on the surface. However, the thinking was flawed through lack of understanding of sharks.

Several myths drove these actions that saw the east coast shark culls that remain to this day:

• That sharks are resident or territorial and killing sharks will reduce their number at local beaches.
• That sharks eat humans.
• That sharks that have bitten someone will become ‘rogue’, developing a taste for human flesh.
• That killing lots of sharks will reduce the risk of shark bite.

And, it’s why the primary methodology employed by the Queensland Shark Control Program are shark nets and drumlines – devices specifically designed to kill sharks.

The science of sharks has improved so much since the 1930s to 1960s, as has general awareness of the importance of healthy marine ecosystems, and yet our control programs still reflect archaic myths from the era, yet the Fisheries Department and Department of Primary Industries (DPI) still operate shark culls that have as their basis these myths and these methodologies. If they rejected these myths, they’d end shark culling.

So, under which department should Shark Bite Mitigation sit?

Shark bite mitigation is a beach safety issue. It’s nonsensical that beach safety sits with a department whose primary concern is fishing, farming and mining.

Queensland has the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI). We believe it would make much more sense for this responsibility to sit here. Responsibilities to the environment could guide a much more eco-friendly system design.

If the main driver of the Queensland Shark Control Program is indeed encouraging tourism, the program should be placed in the department responsible for tourism, not primary industry. Placing it under DETSI may result in a truer representation of Queensland’s diverse tourism industry, which includes many SCUBA diving, freediving, snorkelling, whale watching, sea bird watching and island touring operations - very few of which are likely to support shark culling through lethal devices such as shark nets and drumlines.

It’s a complex area that requires deep understanding of the sciences of shark ecology, human psychology, social drivers and solutions design. Innovation is key.

It’s in the name where responsibility should sit and where it would likely attain a much more effective set of solutions to a long standing and difficult problem.

The program needs to move to the Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation for any chance of the fundamental changes that are required for it to properly evolve into a program that truly has at its core, beach safety and effective shark bite mitigation.

Welcome to our Shark Defence Campaign Blog. We’ve thought for some time about the limitations of social media posts – it’s very challenging to present arguments about often complex issues in a few hundred characters. This is our attempt to nuance our arguments for you.