Recently The West Australian newspaper and the Liberal Member for Vasse, Libby Mettam, attempted to paint a picture that the State Government’s subsidy scheme for shark repellents, specifically built for surfboards, had somehow failed. In fact, the headline referred to surfers supposedly shunning the Freedom+ device.

They failed to mention that the subsidy had only been available for three months.

However, there is no denying, that although it is encouraging to hear from Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly that; “In the South West [alone] at least 36 surfers have purchased a surfer-specific device ...” there hasn’t exactly been a stampede from surfers to invest in this technology.

Ocean Guardian’s chief executive Lindsay Lyon who is responsible for the manufacture of the Freedom+ device admitted he was stumped why surfers weren’t taking to the device and like most reasonable people would want to understand why.

Being responsible for the multiple rallies globally against the Western Australian shark cull, I raised this direct question on social media. The response was quite eye-opening. Some surfers felt that the risk was still too small, some felt that the cost was still too prohibitive despite the subsidy and others just felt that the device wasn’t cool or it was to cumbersome.

I remember being a kid and being told that I had to limit the freedom of the wind blowing through my hair as I rode my bike and instead I had to wear the dreaded Stackhat. It was dirty orange, ugly and inhibiting. I hated it. But for my parents it was a non-negotiable part of riding a bike and the freedom that went with it. The Stackhat was promoted by State Governments across Australia and even though it wasn’t yet compulsory to wear a bike helmet, something in me recognized that it was for my own good, for I wore the damned thing regardless of my deep loathing of it. And in 1988 I realized the great importance of the Stackhat when my dear friend Amanda was knocked off her bike by a vehicle, while riding along the main road of Kingsley in Perth, Western Australia. Her injuries were surmountable, but by far her head injuries were the worst, requiring around 28 stitches, inside and outside her skull. My mother was one of the first on the scene, and by all accounts it was horrific to see. Amanda survived the ordeal without any major issues, but the extent of some her injuries could have been completely avoidable had she been wearing a Stackhat.

Australia was the first country to make wearing bicycle helmets mandatory in the 1990’s and as teenagers, we were mocked by our global peers. 

Five years prior to the introduction of mandatory laws regarding bicycle helmets, parliamentary recommendations regarding their use were made. But according to a 1987 report regarding head injuries to children riding bicycles, the majority of children aged over seven years old were opposed to the idea, despite the best efforts of the Federal Office of Road Safety to persuade children otherwise through the use of Molly Meldrum in this television commercial.

But by 1989, an officially-commissioned survey showed that public support for bicycle helmets was 92% for children and 83% for all riders. Opposition was fragmented, ineffective and no major cycling groups opposed them.

Today, as in discussions regarding seat belts and car accidents, whenever there are reports of head injuries in cyclists, the public, generally saddened by the report, will shrug their shoulders and will reason that the person should have been wearing a bike helmet.

It appears the Freedom+ is on a similar path as the Stackhat. The technology has been proven extensively to reduce shark encounters and is supported by scientists and the Western Australian State Government alike. However, it isn’t cool. But an added complexity is the price; it isn’t cheap either (hence the Government subsidy).

But what bothers me, is when vocal surfers of Western Australia demand that the Government “do something” and ask what price “they” put on a life when advocating for SMART drum lines, but are not willing to consider the exact same question when it comes to a device scientifically proven to reduce shark encounters. In fact these surfers would prefer a measure that has no scientific evidence of reducing shark encounters over and above an option that does. It makes no sense.

Shark Management Alert in Real Time (SMART) drum lines are still undergoing a trial in New South Wales where just this year, an attack in February took place at Kiama Beach and a shark interaction took place in April at Lennox Point; both beaches are part of the NSW drum lines trial.

Until we rip away the security blanket and face the reality of personal responsibility in terms of shark safety, instead of requesting Governments solve everything, we are only going to see measures installed that only placate the vocal minority at the huge expense of taxpayers, instead of actually saving lives. The failed Northern New South Wales two-year shark net trial is an example of this.

​

Sharks live in the ocean and play an important role in keeping oceans healthy, which is of huge benefit to society as a whole. Once everyone can agree that as a result we need to respect rather than fear sharks, only then can a mature discussion take place. Perhaps then, surfers in south-west Western Australia will stop removing safety signs at beaches advising of shark activity because they don’t personally want to be reminded of sharks before going for a surf.

​

This debate is greater than the individual, but it does require responsible personal decisions. No pumping wave is worth the risk of life when the beach is closed and if your decision is to go out anyway, perhaps we need to get to a point whereby we are saddened by the news of the potential shark encounter, but shrug our shoulders and reason that the person should have taken personal safety precautions.

​

The reality is that Governments can not fix stupidity, no matter what attempts they make to increase shark safety. Warning signs, closed beaches, shark medical kits and devices like Freedom+ are all available now. But perhaps we need to wait another five years, when, like the Stackat, it is overwhelmingly supported by the public, or the Government makes personal shark repellents in surfboards mandatory.

​

​

Sea Shepherd national shark campaign co-ordinator Natalie Banks said advice issued directly to ministers and cabinet in WA earlier this year had fallen on deaf ears.

She said drum lining only provided a false sense of security compared to land surveillance and beach signage which were more effective methods to keep people safe in the water.

In January 2014, the first of many rallies against the Western Australian (WA) shark cull took place across the nation and eventually the globe. During this time, I have watched with alarm the way Governments within Australia have attempted to reduce shark encounters.

Opponents of shark nets have reacted angrily to reports that the NSW Government was rushing to install shark nets along beaches in the Ballina shire, and at Evans Head.

What we now know of Baird's shark net plans; shark nets could be put in place for five years! 

​

Legislation to introduce shark nets in Ballina was passed on Tuesday 15th November, which could see shark nets put in place in northern New South Wales for five years.

Sea Shepherd Australia has slammed the Queensland premier’s offer to extend its drum lines and shark nets into NSW north coast beaches in the wake of Monday’s attack on a surfer at Lighthouse Beach.

NON-LETHAL solutions to shark nets will not be investigated on the Sunshine Coast because of lack of interest and political will.

Two rare Japanese Devilrays have been killed by Queensland's shark control program at Miami on the Gold Coast.

 A LACK of information over the location of new shark listening stations and smart drum lines is putting boaties at risk, Sea Shepherd Australia has said.

Marine conservation group Sea Shepherd Australia wants greater transparency from the NSW Government with regards to a trial of ‘smart drum lines’ along the Ballina and Coffs Harbour coastlines.

​

Sea Shepherd’s National Shark Campaign Coordinator Natalie Banks said the drum lines were being used ‘without any transparency on catch data and response times to release animals caught on the hook’.

​

‘There remains many unanswered questions regarding the smart drum line trials including whether they will be removed during bad weather, at night time or when crew are unavailable and where reports of caught marine life will be made available to the public,’ Ms Banks said.

​

‘This trial is taking place as a result of taxpayers funding it, and therefore the outcomes should be clearly transparent.’

Marine conservationists at Sea Shepherd have challenged whether the huge ecological by-catch of Queensland’s program to protect swimmers from sharks is worth it.

Sea Shepherd Australia is beyond shocked upon learning that the Queensland Department of Fisheries is looking to increase the number of drum lines that require a permit to be used within the Great Barrier Reef from 148 to 213; an increase of 65 drum lines.

​

The revelation comes as the Department of Fisheries released an information packoutlining their proposal, which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has released and made available, in order to collate public submissions.

Conservation Group, Sea Shepherd, has said there is no evidence to suggest that shark attacks on the north coast have had a negative impact on tourism.

Queensland's shark control program has been accused by researchers of killing "innocent bystanders" after new figures showed 406 non-targeted animals died in nets and on drum lines between 2009 and 2014.

A spate of shark attacks along the far north New South Wales coast has exacerbated fears in coastal communities and prompted claims the State Government has failed to protect beachgoers.

Environmental groups have applied to have the jaws of two great white sharks that were killed after a shark attack off the West Australian coast last year released under freedom of information (FOI) laws.

   A local surf club was the only key stakeholder to support all aspects of the Western Australian shark cull before the policy was announced, according to documents shown to Guardian Australia.

The West Australian premier, Colin Barnett, has defended his government’s catch-and-kill policy for sharks deemed to pose a “serious threat”.

December 2013 review obtained by No WA Shark Cull said the policy was problematic and opened the government up to criticism

The Western Australian government is jeopardising beach safety by using tagging data to track a great white shark it has marked for culling, a shark expert says.

The West Australian Premier Colin Barnett has been criticised for providing incorrect details about great white sharks.

 Marine activist group Sea Shepherd has called on the Environmental Protection Authority to reject Western Australia's proposed catch-and-kill shark policy on the grounds there was no evidence it would reduce attacks.

An activist against Western Australia's controversial shark cull says a meeting with the chair of the state's environmental watchdog has convinced her the program isn't just being "rubber stamped".

​

#NoSharkCullWA founder Natalie Banks met with Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) chairman Paul Vogel on Friday and said the one-hour discussion was very productive.

The Western Australian government caught 172 sharks, and killed 50 of the largest animals, as part of a culling program that has sparked anger among conservationists.

The Greens claim Scott Ludlam’s thumping Senate win was partly because of simmering community anger over the State Government’s shark cull. 

Senator Ludlam yesterday praised the grassroots operation that helped secure his return to Canberra, claiming it as a win for people power over the big-spending campaigns of Clive Palmer and the major parties. 

He polled the highest Senate primary vote by a Green in the history of the State, making him one of the biggest winners in the Senate election re-run.

Senator Ludlam said his win was a damning indictment of the Abbott Government. 

“The Liberals said this was going to be a referendum on the carbon and mining tax and the Liberal vote went backwards,” Senator Ludlam said. “All Mr Abbott brought was slogans and we have sent him packing.”

The Greens claimed to have been inundated by voters who would usually support the Liberals but backed the Greens in anger over Premier Colin Barnett’s shark-kill program. 

They say the vote is the clearest evidence yet the cull does not have majority community support.

“I was amazed. I was in a very conservative booth yesterday,” Greens senator Rachel Siewert said.

“A large number of people were coming up and talking about sharks and specifically voting Green because of the sharks.”

While the matter received record 23,000 responses in the public consultation period, Mr Vogel said the decision was not based on a "public opinion poll".