Recently the figures of the Gracetown SMART drum line trial, which will utilize 10 bouys across 11.5 km of the Western Australian coastline for 15 months, were announced at a whopping $3.8m.
These costs make a mockery of the handful of people calling for the installation of SMART drum lines in the state. And they don’t just include the few hundred people that stood on the steps of Parliament House last year after the back to back shark encounters that occurred during the Margaret River Pro, but editors of the State’s Newspapers, Josh Frydenberg who in extraordinary circumstances for a Federal Minister placed incredible pressure on the State Government to install them, as well as WA politicians opposing the Government, particularly Libby Mettam and Zac Kirkup.
Moreover, it has proven Dave Kelly was correct when he estimated that the cost of SMART drum lines at WA’s patrolled beaches would cost approximately $50 - $75m a year.
But those demanding SMART drum lines be installed didn’t believe Kelly, fuelled on by the now Federal Treasurer who estimated that a trial along 260km of WA’s coastline for six month would cost $7m, and now they have been proven wrong. The contract has been awarded.
But it isn’t just the costs that are concerning. There is actually no proof whatsoever that the installation of SMART drum lines decreases risks to beach users.
SMART drum lines are primarily an advanced fishing and research tool, used to better understand the movements and distribution of sharks.
The only thing different in a SMART drum lines is the ability to advise the contractor when an animal has been hooked on the line. However, it is relieving to know that this trial will not utilize the same type of hooks that caused such terrible injuries to the sharks caught in Western Australia in 2014, and that the circle hooks used instead, will allow the sharks to swim and therefore oxygenate. I remind those that like to peddle fear as their main motivator, that healthy oceans need sharks.
If you cast your minds back to 2014, during the three month drum line trial in Western Australia, the 172 sharks caught were mainly tiger sharks and one bull shark was also caught. No white sharks. Given that white sharks are the specific target of the SMART drum line trial and will be the only sharks tagged with an acoustic tag, it will be interesting to see how much by-catch the SMART drum lines actually catch. I suspect that the bycatch will outweigh the target species of the trial.
The tow and release method also being utilized throughout the trial comes from
a similar practice in Recife, Brazil that took place between 2004 and 2011, where sharks were tagged before being relocated. The shark relocation program was in operation for 73 months and was inactive for 23 months due to funding shortfalls. Therefore, researchers were able to compare the frequency of shark attacks while the program was active to the months it was on hold. While the program was operational, Recife saw an impressive 97% reduction in the monthly shark attack rate.
But Alison Kock, a marine biologist and the research manager at Shark Spotters in Cape Town, South Africa has advised that there have been mixed results from Recife, Brazil program.
In December 2015, Kock advised Australian Broadcasting Corporation “Fact Check” that; “The data shows a reduced mortality rate using this method and a decline in shark attacks at Recife itself, but the data also shows an increase in shark attacks at an adjacent beach, leaving one wondering whether they have simply moved the problem elsewhere."
Given that the 15 month trial is occurring in Gracetown, it would be absolutely tragic to think that the SMART drum line program mixed with the tag and two method would move the problem nearby to adjacent regions such as the popular tourist destinations of Margaret River, Yallingup or Eagle Bay.
The calls for SMART drum lines have been led by a handful of surfers in the South-West and I personally understand their fear. I am again frustrated by how this debate has been immaturely handled by some members of the public on both sides. Shark bite mitigation is not a black and white issue. Surfers need to acknowledge that environmental changes increases shark bite risk at certain times of the year, that it is sheer stupidity to surf when a beach has been closed due to shark sightings and that is is completely arrogant and selfish to remove shark warning signs from beaches. There also needs to be respect shown to those that genuinely fear going into the waters due to sharks. Those against SMART drum lines need to gently guide these people and the media to the myriad of options available, including shark repellents (for which the Western Australian Government offers a subsidy) that can be installed within surfboards, while pointing out that jaw-snapping sharks and not dotted throughout the coastline waiting for a toe to be dipped in.
As a scuba diver and beginner surfer, it is also not helpful advise to be told to stay out of the water if you are scared. I absolutely love the ocean and there isn’t anything that would stop me from being in the water, but if I feel there is a necessity, I wear a shark repellent, I have surveillance either through a spotter or drone and I make sure that their is a trauma kit available and close by.
The biggest disappointment with this trial, is that $3.8m would buy a lot of signs and a lot of shark trauma medical kits for the state. These have already proven to work in Cape Town, South Africa which has the second largest aggregation of white sharks in the world.