Powered by Blogger.

Pages

  • Home
  • About me
  • Contact me
  • Wildlife Conservation
  • Climate Change
  • Travel
  • Sustainable Living

Conservation With Kate

 ** This is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **


If you take only one things from this article, let it be the title: shark nets kill sharks.
 
When I say shark nets, what I referring to are nets that are deployed across stretches of coastline near popular beaches in order to keep water users safe from being bitten by a shark. Marketed as a necessity, shark nets are plugged to the public as a something to keep people safe from dangerous, human-eating sharks. It is assumed that without these nets, hungry sharks would have easy access to vulnerable swimmers and we’d either not be able to go in the water, or go in at our peril. This is a lie.
 
Shark nets do not prevent sharks from getting close to beaches. Firstly, they do not form a barrier to sharks. They are suspended in the water column, and there is a gap above them,  below them, and between them on both sides. Sharks can literally go over, under, or around the nets if they want to. What’s even more interesting is that in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, the majority of the sharks caught in the nets are caught on the shoreward side. Therefore, the sharks had made it past the nets and were caught in between the beach and the net when swimming back out to sea (away from swimmers). Secondly, the design of nets is not to act as a barrier, but to entangle, catch and kill large sharks.
 
Calling these lethal devices shark nets is the first big marketing win. They are actually gill nets. As in, fishing nets. Gill nets are used by commercial fishermen, and shark nets are the same nets: just on bigger scale for a bigger fish, like a great white shark. If beaches that have shark nets advertised that they have gill nets, we would avoid a lot of misconception (i.e. that these nets form a barrier).

Source: Cape Town SharkSpotters

Another important point to touch on is the non-target nature of gill nets. By this what I mean is, non-target species are also often caught in the net. This is known as by-catch: when you catch something that you didn’t intend to. Turtles, whales, dolphins and smaller sharks all get caught and die in these nets. These are animals that pose no threat to human life. Their only mistake is living in the ocean and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some critically endangered and endangered species have fallen victim to shark nets, such as the humpback dolphin in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa (Atkins et al. 2016).
 
One of the biggest issues surrounding shark nets is that people are largely unaware this is happening. However, the managers of beaches that sign off on these nets are not technically lying to us. If you look for the correct information about shark nets – i.e. they’re are designed to catch and kill sharks, do not form a barrier to shark, and the majority of sharks are caught swimming back out to sea – you’ll find it. But you have to look. You have to be deliberately searching for this information, and so you basically have to already know it to find it. They may not be lying, but they are not forthcoming with the truth.
 
I think this is deliberate. It’s not exactly a good look for them to promote that they kill  sharks, along with lots of other species. But this omission of truth means that the public opposition that I imagine would be there, is missing. Campaigns to end this culling, and to promote human safety AND shark conservation, a coexistence of both, are either not there or not loud enough to be heard.
 
Conservation-wise, the biggest issue with these shark nets is that they violate internationally agreed responsibility to protect endangered species. In Australia, the use of  these nets goes against the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Several species of so-called ‘dangerous’ sharks are endangered, and much of the by-catch is too. Furthermore, sharks carry out critical ecosystem functions as apex predators. Removing them from the system could have cascading consequences for marine life and ecosystem services (natural processes that directly or indirectly benefit humans).

BALANCING HUMAN SAFETY WITH SHARK CONSERVATION

You might be reading this and be conflicted. Yes, killing sharks for just existing in their natural space seems harsh, but if people want to continue recreationally using the water in areas these sharks exist, which encourages tourism and thus has huge direct and indirect economic benefits, then we do need to do something to keep people safe.
 
So what can we do?
 
Firstly, it’s important to understand that sharks do not attack people. Sharks bite people sometimes, but incredibly rarely. And these bites are not a calculated malicious attack. The primary theory of why this happens is curiosity on behalf of the shark. Sharks cannot come up and ask us what we are, or touch us to figure it out. Their way of identifying objects or creatures is to bite them and see. There is also a theory that sharks mistake humans (often on surf boards in wetsuits) for seals. That’s why humans are rarely eaten by sharks: they bite us, realise we are not at all what they wanted, and leave. It’s just unfortunate for us that the force of a curious bite from a great white shark could take your leg off.
 
Sometimes sharks are just aggressive, particularly juveniles. But again, it’s incredibly rare. If  you consider how many people have encountered sharks and not been bitten, or the number of people who have swam at beaches where sharks frequent and not been bitten, you get some idea of just how unlikely being bitten is.
 
Finally, there are shark management strategies that are harmless to sharks, but keep people safe. The Shark Spotters Programme in Cape Town is the most notable and successful to date. A spotter sits at a high vantage point (Cape Town is ideal for this kind of programme with mountains situated adjacent to popular surfing beaches). They use a flag system to  signify level of risk or shark activity. If a shark is spotted, the white flag is raised and an  alarm goes off notifying everyone to get out of the water. The water is evacuated until the spotter deems it safe for people to return. The flag flying also indicates how recently a shark  has been spotted, and how good the spotting conditions are.
 
There are other options too if you don’t have a conveniently placed mountain. New technologies are in the works, including cameras that detect movement in the water. They use machine learning technology to identify sharks based on how they move, so they would  be able to tell if the motion they detect is a shark. There are wetsuits you can buy that are supposed to camouflage you into the water column based on a sharks visual system, and individual shark repellent devices you can attach to yourself.
 
There is also such thing as an exclusion net! A net that actually does form a barrier to sharks  AND does not kill them! These nets form a complete barrier from the water surface to the sea floor, creating an enclosed space for swimmers which marine life cannot enter. The mesh of the net is small (45mmx45mm) and square which reduces entanglement risk. An example of this is also found in Cape Town, at Fish Hoek beach, where a section of the bay is enclosed from sharks. The net is retrieved every evening and deployed every morning, to minimise environmental impact.
 

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Overall, it’s safe to say I do not agree with lethal shark management. I believe it is not only possible, but essential, to promote coexistence with sharks. These days there are ways to recreationally use the oceans and let sharks live. Some beaches, such as in Cape Town, lend themselves easily to shark spotters or exclusion nets. I acknowledge that this is not the case everywhere, and more work is needed to figure out universal solutions or technologies.
 
But, an ocean without sharks is no ocean at all, and to kill these animals for our own enjoyment of their home is senseless. It’s time to leave shark nets in the past.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
No comments
 ** This post is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **



There is a stigma of perfectionism around environmentalism which arguable does more harm than good. By definition, perfection is unattainable. Therefore, the concept of perfectionism is more alienating than it is inspiring. When it comes to environmentalism, this can be damaging.

CHOICES

It is impossible to live a zero impact life. Just by existing, you are exhibiting a carbon footprint. Equally, all products have a carbon footprint. But we need certain things to survive and so we have to engage in some level of consumerism. Therefore, we do inevitably buy things which contribute to our carbon footprint.
 
However, you can make “better” or “worse” choices. For example, most of us have to go to work. Let’s say you live 30 minutes away from work. You can either get the bus or drive yourself. The “better” choice here is the bus: the bus is driving the journey anyway and if you’re on it, then that’s one less car on the road.
 
That was a relatively simple example: choice 1 (bus) has a much lower carbon footprint than choice 2 (car). But the thing with environmentalism is, it’s inherently complex. What if the bus takes 1 hour and the car takes 30 minutes? Furthermore, what if the more obviously “greener” choice, isn’t what it seems?
 
Let’s say the zero waste store is a 30 minute drive from where you live, but a regular supermarket is a 5 minute walk. Do you drive to the zero waste store, your boot/trunk brimming with Tupperwares and tote bags, to avoid plastic packaging on your food; or do you walk to the supermarket and accept that your pasta and vegetables might be individually wrapped in plastic?
 
Environmentalism involves constant trade-offs like these, and it’s important not to beat yourself up for not being perfect. It’s also important not to be deterred from trying to make environmentally conscious choices. Just because you can’t be perfect, doesn’t mean you can’t help.

 

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTALISM?

Another added complication of environmentalism is, it’s an umbrella term for a lot of different stuff. Tackling climate change, preventing pollution, and conserving wildlife: all of these (massive) movements come under ‘environmentalism’. While they have similar overall objectives (a more sustainable and greener future), they are nuanced in their approaches and multifaceted in their aims. Balancing every branch of environmentalism in every decision you make is almost impossible. Balancing every branch of environmentalism overall in your lifestyle is much more achievable and much more beneficial.

 

THE ACHILLES HEEL

Convenience is the Achilles heel of most environmentalists. The ‘easy’ sustainable choices often do not have the biggest impact. Yes, it’s great you use your reusable coffee cup and don’t accept straws anymore, but neither of those things massively affect your carbon footprint or prevent the decline of endangered species. Plastic pollution and climate change are often conflated together, whereas their only real overlap is the carbon used in the manufacturing and distribution of plastic products. If you want to help tackle climate change, then you need to make choices that reduce your individual carbon emissions. If you want to tackle plastic pollution then you need to make choices than minimise how much single-use plastic you are using and dispose of plastic in a sustainable way so it doesn’t end up on land-fill. If you want to tackle the decline of biodiversity, then you need to make choices that conserve nature and wildlife.
 
Some sustainable choices are easier and cheaper than the alternative (e.g. reusable coffee cups or moon cups). But sometimes it’s quicker to jump in the car. It’s also ‘simpler’ to stick with what you know. Some people don’t want to learn to cook vegetarian food or stop buying from cheap well-known fast fashion giants over sustainable fashion brands. If you stick with the norm, you don’t have to do any research, go anywhere new, or try anything different. Many people don’t want to sacrifice convenience for sustainability, and until sustainability becomes the norm, this will continue to hinder the movement.

 


WHAT YOU CAN DO

Strive for progress, not perfectionism. Accept that you can never be the perfect environmentalist, and use this to motivate you to be the best you possibly can. Don’t worry that you cannot be 100% zero waste, flawlessly vegan, carbon neutral all the time or save every species yourself. Just worry about what you can do and inspiring others to do the same. In the words of Earthrise Studio:
“If you have to be perfect, we’d have a very small movement.”
We do not need a few perfect people: we need everyone to TRY.

 

Here’s some simple things anyone can do:

  1. Minimise your single-use plastic waste. Reuse plastic before recycling it. Throw away as little as possible.
  2. Minimise your carbon transport footprint: utilise public transport as much as you can (if/when it is safe to do so with the pandemic) and walk/cycle short journeys.
  3. Minimise your meat consumption. Start by cutting down and gradually reduce it. Why not try going 4 or 5 days a week without meat?
  4. Compost! 6.6million tonnes of food was wasted in the UK in 2018, 70% of which could have been eaten.
  5. Buy second hand clothes.
  6. Support local and sustainable businesses.
  7. Support conservation efforts and organisations.
  8. Only plant indigenous species in your gardens and homes. Avoid invasives or introduced species which could negatively impact local wildlife.
Share
Tweet
Pin
Share
1 comments
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2020 (12)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ▼  November (2)
      • Shark nets kill sharks
      • You don't need to be a perfect environmentalist
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2019 (9)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2018 (12)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (2)
  • ►  2017 (8)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2016 (45)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (2)

Follow Me

  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Popular Posts

  • China Bans Ivory Trade
  • CITES CoP17 Fails to Legalise the Rhino Horn Trade
  • Debate: Should the global trade of rhino horn be legalised?
  • How Legalising the Rhino Horn Trade helps People
  • Canned Hunting

Instagram

Follow

Pages

  • Home
  • Privacy Policy

Created with by ThemeXpose | Copy Blogger Themes