Comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreements for the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program

Transcription

1 Comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreements for the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program Introduction Humane Society International (HSI) has long since campaigned against shark control nets, believing that they pose an unacceptable threat to marine species. We believe that in particular shark nets pose an unacceptable threat to protected species such as the great white shark and the grey nurse shark. In 2003 NSW s Shark Meshing Program (SMP) was listed as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under NSW law (Fisheries Management Act 1994 and Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) following an assessment which concluded that the SMP adversely affected two or more threatened species, populations or ecological communities and could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened. Despite this listing, NSW Government has not yet prepared a threat abatement plan nor addressed the threats posed to these species, this being the first substantive review undertaken of the SMP. Shark meshing is an outdated practice, designed to address public fears at the time it was introduced. In the last six decades the public s ecological awareness and understanding has grown to replace the fear and hysteria that once came from ignorance. In addition human impact on the environment has increased substantially since the introduction of the program. A program in response to a relatively small threat - shark attack is less likely to occur than being struck by lightening - with such a high ecological cost is no longer acceptable. The fact that one of the target species, the great white shark, is listed under national law as vulnerable to extinction yet continues to be targeted, and that the shark control program has contributed to the unfavourable conservation status of species such as the harmless yet critically endangered grey nurse shark, is testimony to the practice of shark meshing being both archaic and inappropriate. The current review states upfront that it is not intending to change the temporal or spatial extent of the program at this stage. Whilst this is disappointing, HSI offers recommendations to improve their management to reduce their ecological impact. We hope that the suggested approach will assist in improved data collection to 1

2 enable better assessment of the impact of the nets and better understanding by the public, leading to the removal of shark nets as a bather protection mechanism as soon as the politicians are ready to show leadership on this issue, and other more appropriate measures adopted in their place. Despite our ongoing objections to shark control programs, HSI is providing the following comments, focused on the Draft Joint Management Agreements and the Management Plan. Comments on Draft Joint Management Agreements & Management Plan Draft Joint Management Agreements HSI welcomes the proposed reporting mechanisms and the delegation of management of the Shark Meshing Program (SMP) from DPI to the Fisheries Scientific Committee (FSC) and the Scientific Committee (SC), allowing the Committees to act as an environmental watchdog over the program. It is hoped that the Annual Performance Report, Review Report and five yearly review of the Agreement will enable the SMP to have a higher level of transparency than has been the case to date. We support the establishment of Trigger Points which if activated set in motion a review of the SMP. The proposed Monthly Catch Summary Reports will allow for early analysis of catch data and we expect this regular reporting cycle to allow for the swift identification of any Trigger Points tripped during the season, so that these can be acted upon immediately and action is not delayed by the end of the season. This is vital given the status of critically endangered species such as the grey nurse shark, as the take of just one individual constitutes a significant impact on the species in accordance with the grey nurse shark Recovery Plan. Trigger Points may also be tripped following the listing of a new species, population or ecological community under the FMA 1994 or the TSCA We expect the Committees to use the Joint Management Agreement to respond robustly and appropriately to new information as soon as it becomes available, without delaying any required action until the end of the meshing season. Management Plan Target species The Management Plan states that the target species for the SMP are whaler sharks (bull, dusky, bronze, blacktip and spinner), tiger shark, white shark, mako (shortfin) shark, and broad-nosed sevengill shark. It is our understanding that this list is somewhat broadened from the current target species of bull shark, tiger shark, and white shark. Last and Stephens (2009) state that nearly all fatal attacks can be attributed to only four species of shark - white, tiger, bull and oceanic whitetip sharks, the latter of which is not found in inshore waters and therefore not relevant to the SMP. Clarification is therefore sought as to why the number of target species has been increased to include the four whaler species (dusky, bronze, blacktip and spinner), the mako (shortfin) shark and the broad-nosed sevengill shark. The inclusion of a broad range of species as target species for the SMP simply due to the potential risk of attack from other species of sharks generally greater than 2m in length (review report page 35), is completely without scientific basis and risks being alarmist. There is no history of either mako (shortfin) sharks or broad-nosed sevengill sharks being involved in any unprovoked attacks in NSW. Given that attacks by whaler sharks predominately take place in Sydney Harbour and its tributaries (review report page 35) which fall outside of the SMP s remit, the inclusion of dusky, bronze, blacktip and spinner sharks cannot be considered justifiable. 2

3 The list of target species should therefore be amended to only include the bull shark, tiger shark, and white shark. Should the full list of species currently identified as target species in the plan remain unchanged, evidence of the alleged threat to bathers should be made publicly available to justify their inclusion. The removal of September and October as meshing months We continue to support the removal of nets in these two months. 57% of the annual catch of great white sharks caught between 1990/91 and 2007/08 were captured during September and October (review report page 16). The great whites caught during these months are mostly juveniles. Although these are not the adult females determined to be of most importance to the great white population, the capture of juveniles can only threaten the future viability of the great white population. In September alone 40% of the annual catch of grey nurse sharks was caught, and catches of Port Jackson, broad-nosed sevengill and thresher sharks, dolphins and seals were all at their highest level in September. Netting in these months cannot therefore be considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Joint Management Agreement, in particular objective to ensure that Shark Meshing does not jeopardise the survival or conservation status of Threatened Species nor is it consistent with Management Plan objective 10(1)b) Minimise the impact on non-target species Given this information, we encourage the NSW Government to suspend meshing during September and October and make better use of other methods such as education of beachgoers during these months. In addition the Shark summit reported that: Research on the migrating patterns and breeding behaviour of great white sharks indicates that sharks move south during September / October and the historical rate of attacks suggests that there is a decreased risk of shark attack during this time (review report page 93). The summit also noted that bull sharks are also rarely caught during these months, recommending that NSW DPI undertake further research to allow removing these months from the SMP. It is our understanding that this work has not yet taken place and we encourage its inclusion within the strategic research and monitoring program. The removal of nets in the month of September would also assist in the prevention of capture of humpback whales, also a protected species, as they migrate along the NSW coast. Given this evidence we call for the removal of the months of September and October as meshing months within the SMP program. Program aim (clause 9) The stated aim of the SMP (clause 9(1)) is to deter dangerous sharks from establishing territories. The target species which have been identified as dangerous (great white, tiger and bull sharks) are thought to be transient to NSW and there is no evidence that any of these species establish localised territories (in contrast with the protected grey nurse shark). The stated aim of the program cannot therefore be considered accurate. Unless evidence can be presented which determines the establishment of territories, the aim of the SMP should be amended to reflect the more accurate aim of reducing shark numbers through a culling program. Objectives (clause 10) 3

4 Objective b of the Management Plan (clause 10(1)b)) states that the objective is to: Minimise the impact on non-target species and to ensure that the SMP does not jeopardise the survival or conservation status of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, or cause species that are not threatened to become threatened. The number of grey nurse sharks caught in the SMP in recent years has reduced. This is a function of depleted population numbers, an intensive diver survey in 2001 estimating that the number of individuals in the east coast population to be fewer than 500 (Fisheries Scientific Committee, 2008). In the 10 years from 1998/99 to 2007/08, 14 grey nurse sharks were reported caught, only four of which were released alive (review report, page 56). The report notes that the SMP predominately catches female sharks, severely limiting the ability to recover and the rate of that recovery this is likely to pose a significant risk to a critically endangered species (review report, page 56). This statement alone appears to be in direct contrast to the objective of the Management Plan stated above. Given the status of critically endangered species such as the grey nurse shark, the take of just one individual constitutes a significant impact on the species in accordance with the grey nurse shark Recovery Plan. With shark nets already listed as a Key Threatening Process for great white sharks and grey nurse sharks, we believe that it is not possible for the SMP to be able to meet the objective as set out above (clause 10(1)b)). Trigger points (clause 11) We support the inclusion of performance indicators and the establishment of trigger points for review. As per our earlier comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreement, the establishment of these trigger points, together with a more regular structured reporting system, will assist in the collection of data that has to date been lacking from the SMP. We encourage the early detection of, and response to, evidence that the Trigger Points have been tripped. In addition, we believe that the trigger points should be amended so that if more than one critically endangered grey nurse shark is caught in any one season the nets should be removed for the remainder of that season. Given that the grey nurse shark Recovery Plan states that the take of just one individual constitutes a significant impact on the species, we believe the removal of the nets once one individual has been caught is an appropriate response. This measure should also apply for any other protected species caught, such as the great white shark. Frequency of use (clause 22) We support the recommendation in the review report to reduce net inspection periods from 96 hours to 72 hours (clause 22 (1)e)) however we suggest that this change be incorporated into contracts immediately starting from the 2009/10 season with no delay whilst waiting for current contracts to expire. We believe that the net inspection period should be further reduced to hours to enable increased survival of species caught in the nets which would likely drown if left for a period of 72 hours. We believe that a daily check adopted within the Management Plan would ensure consistency with its objective of minimising impact on non-target and protected species. This is particularly important if the months of September and October continue to be included in the program, when the highest number of great white and grey nurse sharks are caught in the nets (see earlier comments). 4

5 Increased net inspection periods would also be desirable to ensure the prompt removal of carcasses from nets, so as not to attract more sharks to the area, to ensure the SMP is able to meet its stated aim of protecting bathers. In addition a clause should be added into the contracts stating that nets should not be set if inclement weather is expected, which would not allow for the required frequent running of nets. Release protocols (clause 27) We understand that a shark identification guide is currently in production that is due to be given to contractors and observers shortly. It is hoped that this will assist contractors with accurate identification and reporting of shark species (of both target and non-target species), in particular whalers. Wherever possible DNA analysis of sharks should also be undertaken to verify field observations and ensure accurate data is held. Contractors should be required to release all non target species (which includes the critically endangered grey nurse shark) live. It is crucial that a program is put in place to ensure the collection of as much biological information as possible to enable knowledge to be built on those species caught, both live and dead. This is routine in shark control programs in South Africa and has allowed scientific knowledge of the populations to be built, data currently lacking in Australia. Without this information robust assessment of non-target species populations cannot be accurately known. The release protocol for target species currently states that whether sharks are released live is dependent upon their size and condition. This assessment is conducted by the individual Contractor. There is therefore likely to be some variation in how this decision is conducted, dependant upon the individual Contractor s experience and viewpoint. Further training should be provided to ensure that Contractors are provided with a robust assessment against which their decision can objectively be reached, to avoid unnecessary killing of sharks. Currently waste management and disposal protocols (clause 25) state that animals must be disposed beyond 3 nautical miles off the NSW coastline. There is some belief amongst contractors that this is also the case when releasing live sharks. The Management Plan as currently drafted appears to be silent on this point. Clarification should be inserted in point 27 stating that live target (and non-target) species can be released at the net site, to avoid excessive stress to the animal involved and potentially OHS issues for the contractor. Threatened and protected species arrangements (clause 28) The Management Plan states that protected species must be released immediately if safe to do so. In South Africa sharks are released by slashing nets, when it is considered not possible or safe to free them using normal methods, thus reducing the concerns or potential OHS issues for Contractors. It is recommended that the Management Plan be amended to cover this provision, and the Government consider amending the compensation arrangements for nets if required as a result of regular net damage. We also believe that netting in the months of September and October constitute significant threat to protected species (see our earlier comments) and call for these months to be removed from the SMP as a minimum. Observers (Part 4) We encourage the inclusion of observers wherever possible to allow verification of the data from the SMP. Given the appalling lack of species-specific data provided from the SMP to date (in contrast to other programs such as in South Africa) the 5

6 provision of biological data from the SMP is of high importance, and the ability to verify this by trained observers will lend further credence to the data. Only high levels of observer coverage will enable this to occur, and we encourage observer hours to be increased wherever possible, and particularly in the larger administrative regions such as Sydney North where observer hours are comparatively low. Establish strategic research and monitoring program (Part 6) We support the establishment of a strategic research and monitoring program, with the proviso that the program be implemented in a timely manner. In particular the scientifically-based shark attack risk assessment should be facilitated to allow data on the bather population and ecological requirements of sharks to be collected to inform future developments of the SMP. Education on the SMP is also needed more broadly, (as noted in recommendation four, review report page 39), so that DPI can improve public understanding of the SMP. We support the recommendation that the state broadens its existing community education campaign (review report, page 41). There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the extent of coverage by shark nets and more work needs to be done to clarify the level of public understanding as part of the research program, to provide a basis from which understanding can be improved. In addition it is hoped that the proposed program enables increased research on the target species and particularly on bull and tiger sharks to determine the impacts of the SMP on the populations of these two species. This will help to determine whether or not the impact of the SMP is at a sustainable level for these two species. Mesh/net filament size It has been suggested that an increase in mesh filament size would prevent smaller non-target species from getting caught in the nets. We support an increase in mesh filament size and suggest that this be standardised as part of the contract changes. Comments on Report into the NSW Shark Meshing Program Risk analysis The risk analyses undertaken in the report suggest that for great white and grey nurse sharks, both protected species, there is a moderate risk posed to both species as a result of the SMP. The analysis undertaken to determine the score of the risk to both these species compared the catch from the SMP with catch from other threats such as recreational and commercial fishing efforts. Any attempt to reject the significance of a threat on the basis that others appear to have a higher relative impact is a misleading simplification. The SMP is recognised under NSW law as a Key Threatening Process to both these species, and appears to have been one of the major causes of both species decline since the nets have been in place. The grey nurse was the first shark to be protected in the world. Recognition of a significant population decline and the species critically endangered status on the east coast of Australia once again call for a very cautious management approach, relying heavily on the precautionary principle. Humane Society International 30 April

7 References Environment Australia (2002). Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias Taurus) in Australia. Environment Australia, Canberra. Fisheries Scientific Committee, January Final Determination, Carcharias Taurus grey nurse shark File No. FSC 99/22 Available online: Green, M., Ganassin, C. and Reid, D.D. (2009) Report into the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program. NSW Department of Primary Industries Fisheries Conservation and Aquaculture Branch. Last P and Stevens J (2009) Sharks and Rays of Australia - second edition, CSIRO Publishing, VIC, Australia. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Scientific Shark Protection Summit, 10 April