speaker-0: Hey everyone, to help launch Crossing the Tide Line podcast, Ocean Earth have generously donated a prize pack bonanza to be won by a listener. An apex board bag, leggy, grip pad, tower, wax, stickers, the lot. To enter, there's three things you need to do. Follow the Crossing the Tide Line podcast channel wherever you listen. Follow at Crossing the Tide Line on Instagram. And DM us the two code words. One hidden somewhere in the previous episode with Senator Surfer and one hidden in this app. So two code words across two separate episodes. Once you've got both, send them through and you're in the running. Winner takes all and we'll announce who that is on socials in an upcoming episode.
speaker-1: Food source is here, they're there. It's that simple. More and more be lost if bullhardy sapers jump into the open sea. Can you imagine trying to swim away from that to get it out? bottle because it looks about Surf life saving Just go to a local port.
speaker-0: It's never been like this.
speaker-1: I've said it before, if you've seen the beasts I've seen out there while I've been fishing, there's no way in the world you'd be out there surfing.
speaker-0: Hello everybody, welcome to Crossing the Tide Line podcast with Brett Bircher. This week's guest is Dan Weber. Dan's a journalist, surfer, longtime observer of the Shark Debate, and someone who spent years close to the reality of what happened around Ballinor and Byron during that intense run of incidents through 2014 and 2015. He's witnessed attacks firsthand, spent time around shaking communities, and over the years has become one of the more outspoken voices. In the conversation around shark management in Australia. Dan also started the Balliner Shark Reports page, which became a major source of information and discussion during a period where fear, uncertainty, and emotion were running high along the coastline. Through years of research, observation, and lived experience, he's developed strong views and is critical of a lot of the current thinking around sharks. From DPI policy to deterrence, his support of shark nets. To what he sees as an imbalance between environmental ideology and human safety. He puts forward a few theories of his own also within this episode. I really enjoyed and got a lot of value out of hearing from someone who's asking the difficult questions and refusing to reduce a deeply human issue into simple slogans. This chat was recorded on the 30th of April, 2026, at 2 pm. We have Dan Weber with us this afternoon. Welcome to crossing the tideline, mate. How you going?
speaker-1: Very well, thanks, Brett.
speaker-0: And where are you speaking from today, D?
speaker-1: Yeah, Bellinar. Bellinar, New South Wales.
speaker-0: Is that where you were born and bred or
speaker-1: actually from Sydney. ⁓ I've been here twenty five years. I was overseas for ten. ⁓ prior to that I was in Bondo. Actually Rose Bay, but Bondo was our local beach.
speaker-0: Now the Weber Brothers are a name you heard quite regularly in the surfing circles growing up. you're one of the one of the boys within that family. How was that growing up in that family? And yeah, tell us a bit about your childhood and then who you are and what you get up to.
speaker-1: ⁓ well that's a big story. I mean ⁓ I'm sixty one years old, so you know, as a a lifetime there. It's hard to condense it. But ⁓ we grew up in the Eastern suburbs ⁓ and ⁓ used to holiday at Angowri from mid seventies and ⁓ most of the family's living in the in that area now. I'm ⁓ Angary's about an hour and a half south of Ballinor. So I'm down there ⁓ fairly regularly. ⁓ ⁓ so I think the reason that you're wanting to talk to me and you can confirm this is that I ⁓ was in ⁓ in the water for a couple of shark attacks in East Ballina and ⁓ subsequently got involved in the debate. And ⁓ I've I've appeared in a number of documentaries and I attended ⁓ well I spoke at a Senate inquiry into shark mitigation measures. And I've written six or seven ⁓ articles for ⁓ flat white and have appeared in Beach Great, ⁓ one or two in ⁓ tracks on the topic. And ⁓ and I've also more recently written ⁓ an academic two academic pieces which have got a lot of coverage on ResearchGate. ⁓ and so in the last year, six months I've six months ago I ⁓ set up a what's called a a petition to extend shark nets north of Newcastle and south of Wollongong. And so I've spent the last sort of ⁓ well it was a two month period duration and ⁓ I spent a lot of time online fighting for the cause. And so I'm quite familiar with the ⁓ the arguments on both sides. And ⁓ so I think that that's probably why it's ⁓ it could be useful for you to to talk to me because I I ⁓ think I can argue the the other side just as well as anyone.
speaker-0: Can confirm that's exactly why I reached out, Dan. ⁓ I have paid attention to your work and I know that you have lived through a community that has felt the effects immediately over quite a long period of time. And I also know that you were in the water for some of those incidents and therefore have a, you know, personal story to share around that, which then thrusted you into a lot of this work. And that was a good while ago, you know, and you've been at this. Focusing on just the whole topic from a range of areas for that long. You know, and I don't think there's many people who would have commentary
speaker-1: I actually gave up a a couple of years ago because it ju just seems so futile because ⁓ we we don't get ⁓ much feedback or response from the government or the ⁓ Department of Primary Industries. I mean they ⁓ they pretend to to to talk to me, but it's ⁓ they're they're not very helpful. ⁓ and I ⁓ you know I'm critical of them. ⁓ but I ended up giv I gave up a couple of years ago and the only reason I got back into it was that ⁓ An academic in America asked me to contribute to a book and to write a chapter on the topic of shark mitigation measures. And ⁓ so I decided to ⁓ to take on that task. It was really quite difficult. I put a couple hundred hours into researching the topic, and so ⁓ the piece that I ended up ⁓ submitting as eighty plus research articles from ⁓ science journals. ⁓ hundred or more ⁓ citations altogether. So I'll give a bit of a history of well pretty thorough history actually of the ⁓ shark mitigation ⁓ technology over the years, over the century. And ⁓ it's got a lot of attention. I mean it rates really highly in the top one percent of ⁓ shark related articles on ResearchGate, which I think infuriates some of the academics. It's ⁓ it's just that I'm the only one who's publishing the other side of the story. And ⁓ this is part this is the interesting thing about this issue is ⁓ you know, so there's just not many people who ⁓ I I I don't know ⁓ why people are so afraid to speak up for ⁓ or speak against sharks. I suppose the the obvious question ⁓ answer to that is that people are afraid of being cancelled. And ⁓ you know, I can understand that I've I've cocked it pretty I've lost friends, you know, it's it's that's just part and parcel of the whole operation. But ⁓ you know, I believe strongly in in what I'm saying and I think that the the fact that these ⁓ that there are no academics on this side of the debate, established academics, I think that speaks volumes for what the problem is. They they c they can't afford to ⁓ well they can't even afford to be honest about the data. And I c I can go into explaining why I why that's the case. 'cause I've thoroughly investigated it, their careers depend on them towing the environmental line. And so whether ⁓ whatever your opinion on this topic, at the very least we can discuss the fact that they are not honest. And I can prove that quite clearly.
speaker-0: All right, can you hold that thought and we'll come back to that? 'Cause being a responsible podcast host, I better build the narrative here a little bit, mate. Keep let me let me do that. ⁓ but yeah, I wanna definitely come back that. I've got
speaker-1: Why don't we go over the ⁓ the shark crisis that we have? That's that's funny.
speaker-0: Well I just want you to take me back to two thousand and fifteen and tell me about how it felt to be in Balina in those times, you know, the effect that it had on the greater community and just what what it felt like with you being personally involved in those incidents and what actually happened. Just share that with us.
speaker-1: Okay, so over a two year period there were twelve shark attacks between Evans Head and Byron Bay. First one in ⁓ late late ⁓ twenty fourteen, ⁓ Paul Wilcox and Byron Bay. So that's a seventy kilometer stretch of coast. And ⁓ the first one in Ballinar was in February ⁓ twenty fifteen. That was also a fatality. ⁓ that was Tadashi. He ⁓ he lost both his legs. And so ⁓ it was at that point that ⁓ Balinar ⁓ started to fear ⁓ shark attacks. So I mean prior to that you know, it was ⁓ certainly an issue, but ⁓ you know, ⁓ two shark attacks in two fatal shark attacks in a matter of months got people nervous. And then ⁓ ⁓ in July there was Matt Lee was attacked, July twenty fifteen. And so it was after that I was in the water for that one, only about three hundred meters away. ⁓ it was after that one that I set up Ballon and Shark Reports, which was just using Facebook as a way of people to ⁓ reporting ⁓ whether they ⁓ that they saw a shark, ⁓ whereabouts. And so the idea here was simply that we could get the information out quickly. And ⁓ there was a of skepticism about whether that would work, but I I was confident that The ⁓ reports were ⁓ were valid. ⁓ there were a couple that were obviously not, you know, like I I it didn't take much effort to to verify whether the person was ⁓ trolling. Anyway, so over that ⁓ over a five-week period, ⁓ there were 35. So an average of one ⁓ shark sighting a day ⁓ between Ballinar and Linux Head, which is about 10, 12 kilometers. ⁓ It was amazing to to to do that. I I ⁓ I got a couple of people helping 'cause it was a it was pretty demanding staring at the screen for hours of the day to see 'cause the idea was to get the information onto the page as rapidly as possible. And so I could see ⁓ it was amazing because I could see within wow, within a minute or two people were sharing it. And so it was actually functioning in the way that I I had it intended. was a bit hard because there are a lot people wanting to to discuss sharks generally. And I was asking people, just try to leave this as ⁓ as a tool for us to to get the message out, but they were wanting to discuss stuff and people were upset with me s you know, and saying that I don't know what Facebook is about and they're saying, Well, you know, this is the best I can do. ⁓ you know, it it's a tool that I mean, since then, ⁓ you know, there's been a number of ⁓ proper apps developed for that purpose. ⁓ anyway, so ⁓ it was crazy because ⁓ it upset the ⁓ business community apparently. You know, I I don't know if that's true, but ⁓ it was probably a combination of the ⁓ Balinus Shark reports and ⁓ the fact that I was communicating with Fred Paul, who was ⁓ writing articles for the Australian. And ⁓ so the message was getting out pretty quickly whenever there was s an issue. ⁓ you know, any shark sightings. And so we had some good ⁓ articles. Anyway, so ⁓ the mayor rang me and asked me to take it down and I ⁓ I was kind of tired of it anyway 'cause it was exhausting. And there were no ⁓ organizations or businesses prepared to to help me out. And I envisaged sort of getting together a team of ⁓ work for the doll ⁓ fellows or or anyone interested in ⁓ in doing a few hours a day 'cause I wouldn't think you'd want do more than a couple of hours of staring at a screen, it's that hard to concentrate ⁓ for that long. Anyway, so ⁓ yeah, it was just a hot potato for everyone. Nobody wanted to step up to the plate. And I can kinda understand that. You know, it's ⁓ it's a it's a really contentious topic. ⁓ so anyway, ⁓ I I could see that I couldn't deliver the the service ⁓ in the long term. Certainly not the longer hours of of ⁓ daylight hours of summer. And so I deactivated it. ⁓ and ⁓ two months later, ⁓ which his name ⁓ Sam Morgan was attacked also at at ⁓ Lighthouse Beach. So ⁓ over that twenty month period that I was talking about, ⁓ there were twelve over the seventy kilometer stretch of coast between Evans and Byron. Ten eight of them were within ten kilometers of the river mouth and four of them were within one kilometer of the river mouth. ⁓ Yeah. So I was in the water for two of ⁓ Sam ⁓ sorry, ⁓ Matley and ⁓ Cooper Allen. So Cooper Allen happened right in front of me. It was ⁓ not more than about five four or five meters away. And ⁓ he ⁓ he just got some nasty gashes. The ⁓ the teeth went through his his thigh didn't actually chomp him, just slid through ⁓ his thigh and ⁓ so it was like ⁓ four or five parallel gashes. And so he's recovered ⁓ really well. Full recovery. ⁓ Matt Lee, ⁓ he he's not I I don't know if he's still surfing, but ⁓ he he he took the shark took a huge chunk, huge chunk out of his thigh. So it's ⁓ and apparently the ⁓ the surgeon said that his ⁓ his artery was visible in the bottom of the the wound. So he was, you know half a millimeter from death, you know. If it had severed that. It took an enormous chunk. It's like a chunk out ⁓ a bite out of an apple. It's it's just gruesome. There's a photo online. It's ⁓ I don't even like looking at it, it's hideous. So ⁓ so that was ⁓ the the period was extraordinary because ⁓ certainly the media arrived because it was a sensation that they could make use of. and ⁓ so there were like three or four media outfits in the area. They were actually driving around East Bell hoping to bump into Cooper Allen. ⁓ they were ringing me and pestering me to ⁓ to somehow get Cooper to speak on camera. He was reluctant. ⁓ anyway, so ⁓ it was a stressful period because I mean obviously everyone talked about it incessantly for a couple of years, but we had helicopters flying over constantly. Like I mean every And then every hour or two you'd hear another helicopter flying over and you'd think, My God, you know, is there another one? ⁓ sirens, as soon as you'd hear a siren, you'd ⁓ my god, who's next? That's how reg how frequent it was. There were obviously lots of bumps and and sightings. The the sea was alive. It was like a an aquarium. There were ⁓ we actually had whales in the surf with us, paddled next to a third a duck dived a ⁓ a four foot sat next to a thirty foot long whale. ⁓ There were birds everywhere. it was it was alive. There were stingrays and really lot lots and lots of ⁓ what are they called, ⁓ bait fish, bait balls. ⁓ big fish too, you know, proper sized fish ⁓ in schools, dolphins galore. It was it was a it was glorious, to be honest with you. It was it was amazing. ⁓ for the first couple of months there were only a few of us surfing. Which was amazing for me because I mean I've never surfed so much. Never got so many waves. So there's no competition. And the waves are good. Some people say the waves weren't weren't any good, but we were getting heaps of waves. And ⁓ by about with within six months the crowd started to creep back. ⁓ but over a period of about two years, I don't reckon there were more than about twenty guys surfing ⁓ North Wall. ⁓ and it was a great experience, you know, everyone keeping ⁓ keeping an eye on each other, you know, like it's if you ever saw anyone paddle out, you'd join them just because you didn't want them to be on their own. And ⁓ if anyone got out of the surf and you were the last one, ⁓ they'd wait for you to get out. So the camarader extraordinary, you know. It was it was a rare experience. the ⁓ The media was oddly enough, the online experience was probably more traumatic than the ex ⁓ actual experience of witnessing a shark attack. I mean The the hatred online, I think that's ⁓ what so confused me that people were so victim blaming, you know, really nasty attitude to people online. and so I think that that's probably what drew drew me into it. And so it's a bit of a paradox when you see ⁓ people attacking people online, ⁓ ridiculing them. For for me, as much as I find that insulting and and distressing. It actually drew me closer to the topic because I I really wanted to understand it. And so that was sort of the beginning of a journey for me to ⁓ to try to get to the bottom of ⁓ what I think is actually a ⁓ a part of the culture war. The broader culture war.
speaker-0: What does that do to your nervous system and mental state when you're hearing sirens, helicopters? You're also running a forum that looks at the sightings ⁓ and then you're seeing them yourself and you're an everyday surfer. Like how do you feel during those months and years?
speaker-1: ⁓ I'm pretty sure there was a bit of trauma. Bit of ⁓ I don't know if it was literally PTSD, but something in that you know, something like that. ⁓ certainly anxiety. ⁓ you ⁓ oddly enough, I mean, because I did ⁓ continue surfing, I d I hit on a a formula which is simply not to think about it. You simply cannot think about it. 'Cause the moment you start thinking about it, it's a downward spiral and you're gonna get out. You know, it's ⁓ I mean, ⁓ it's a strange thing that I don't think many people appreciate is that when when you're a keen surfer, it's very hard to watch waves going on ridden. It's it's a pure addiction, you know. Especially since most of the time that you you you know most surfs you have, you're you're competing for waves and the younger guys are running rings around me these days. So ⁓ the opportunity to to get the waves to myself was awesome. I I literally mean it. I've never had so many waves as I did back then. But I mean there were times it was it was scary, you know. We've had we had had a good six footer jump out of the water only two metres from us. ⁓ down at Evans there was a five footer that jumped out of the water four times and it was so funny because this guy, ⁓ obviously a local, ⁓ paddled out and he was so tough, you know, he had tats and he looked looked like he owned the joint. And it was very murky water, so we shouldn't have been out there. That's what they say. ⁓ but anyway, the shark bumped into him and he completely lost his composure. go from being the tough guy to wimp like and then I I started to paddle in and tried to get the next way, but I was so nervous that my my rail dug and I went underwater and ⁓ and there's just I mean it was only a five footer, but still you shit yourself. ⁓ but ⁓ there were lots of experiences like that. ⁓ But ⁓ like I say, the ⁓ the camaraderie was was amazing. It's like ⁓ keeping an eye on each other and and and getting so many waves together. I mean sometimes Northwall's like a skate park with all the crosswaves. Pure fun.
speaker-0: Now you said it was really beautiful to see such a wide array of wildlife. What made that year different? And is it like that now? Is it still so alive? Or why why two thousand fifteen?
speaker-1: Very unusual. So we get a lot of whale watches, as most places do, and ⁓ there was one occasion where there were I think it would have been at least ten whales within I'd say within a kilometre of the coast, definitely within a kilomet probably around five hundred meters out, along the stretch that you could see sort of from ⁓ you know, say say a two kilometer stretch. It was like a documentary, you know, nature documentary, just seeing these whales jumping out of the water. ⁓ It it was extraordinary. ⁓ I think it has something to do with upwelling. And upwelling. ⁓ so you know how you get the ⁓ the nor'easters that make the the water cold? Something to do with the Coriolis effect. ⁓ so the upwelling increases the ⁓ the nutrients in the water and so it's probably just ⁓ you know, a ⁓ confluence of different environmental factors. ⁓
speaker-0: And that's can you paint a picture of what upwelling is and what conditions that occurs on? It's generally a northeast wind.
speaker-1: Well, I believe that. I I I I don't know for sure. ⁓ the other thing that's interesting on on that score is ⁓ down the ⁓ east coast you've got these ⁓ so you've got the the East Australian current, I think it's called. and ⁓ there are these ⁓ vortices or eddies that ⁓ rotate ⁓ they're a couple of hundred kilometres across I I think. Thereabouts generally. ⁓ and and so when they come close to the coast and they're going ⁓ back up north, when the fl current is going back up north, apparently that brings water ⁓ up that that creates the situation where you get cooler water coming up. ⁓ so ⁓ I think I've exp explained that accurately. ⁓ so I would imagine that it would have been a whole bundle of things like that. ⁓ and But I don't know that anybody's come up with a with a a solid explanation. Which is surprising because you'd think that, you know, you would have ⁓ really investigated all of the data that you had available and because I mean there is data. And ⁓ well, all I can think is that ⁓ that I kind of owe it to the next town that's gonna experience this. Yeah.
speaker-0: Seems to occur like that. It seems like there's clusters that communities and towns go through and they have their their patch. And ⁓ Balinor certainly had theirs, South Australia's had theirs, Western Australia have had theirs, Port Macquarie, you could say has had theirs, and Sydney recently have had theirs as well. So it seems like it always finds a home for a couple of years that becomes the epicentre. But then it's also currently feeling like it's pretty active Everywhere although it although it might not be the epicenter, there is still activity occurring and people getting bumped and lots of sightings happening across the coast. But yeah, it is a it is an interesting question, the two thousand and fifteen run in Balmer. ⁓ I've asked quite a few members of the podcast what they put it down to and you know, everyone has their theories, but yeah, you can never say exactly why. ⁓ now going back to your alert system that you set up there on Facebook and it became quite popular and then got got politely asked to be put down due to the effects it's having on the community. Like what were your intentions around that? What were your intentions around alerting the community that there had been a sighting?
speaker-1: Well, I I I imagined that somebody could ⁓ get a ping on their phone, say they're down at Flat Rock or anyway, and then ⁓ run down to the beach and say, Hey, there's there's a shark, you know, like that's what happened when when ⁓ Matt Lee was attacked? I ⁓ we heard the siren, ⁓ the ⁓ the ambulance. And I remember looking up to the ⁓ to the the lookout and saw some people staring out to sea. ⁓ whale watchers probably. And ⁓ for some reason I got it in my head that there was nothing wrong because they would have known, which is kind of silly when you think about it. But it was like ten minutes later that ⁓ somebody paddled up to me and said, hey, there's something going on at the other end of the beach. And ⁓ at that point, you know, I realized what was going on and I said, come on, we've got to go in. I paddled like crazy to get in. ⁓ I'd actually seen this is worth mentioning at this moment because ⁓ I then realised that I'd only just seen, ten minutes or fifteen minutes before then, ⁓ a dolphin with its baby in the surf zone. And so I figured that that might have been its way of ⁓ hiding from from the shark. Anyway, a year later, I saw the same thing and I paddled in. I thought, just in case that is a an indication.
speaker-0: Yeah, seems like a really responsible thing to watch a dolphin's activity. We had Rasta on the podcast a few weeks ago and he was making mention of how he watches how the dolphins are interacting. And if they if they're playing as usual and then all of a sudden they split and go around the headland, he'll be like, Well, why why did that happen? And then but then he'll say if they're if they're babies and mothers and the whole family are just playing and they're all splashing around and catching waves, then he feels like they're not under threat. And so
speaker-1: Right, good point.
speaker-0: I I really have used that since in my life because dolphins became I used to have this ⁓ very neutral relationship with them, meaning that I just watched them for what they were doing in that moment without any extra thought until I had my encounter. And then I'd heard several reports that, you know, it doesn't mean that a pot of dolphins a pot of dolphins, excuse me, doesn't mean that there's no sharks. There could be a shark within that pot of dolphins and that really stuck with me afterwards. So I started to watch them really eagerly, like as in when I'd see them I'd feel uncomfortable. Not so much about the dolphins themselves, but what could potentially be within that pod. and then so Yeah, that's that's what was the Crowdy Bay. ⁓ yeah, it was at ⁓ Kylie's Beach, which is no more than as the crow flies fifty kilometres from here. Right. And that was another thing that solidified that, ⁓ shit, you can't you can't let your guard down in in their presence. ⁓ but I'd sort of missed the fact that I could watch them and make up my own mind going off knowledge that I'd heard with other stories like yourself just there and Rasta. So that's a really good point. If you see a dolphin and it's Junior in the in the zone that could potentially be hiding from something, then it's a good thought to have in your mind. So thanks for that. now going back to that when you said, you know, someone might see the ping at Flat Rock and run down and alert those surfers to come in. Now it feels like common knowledge for anyone who's paying somewhat of attention that sharks are always there. And so I find it conflicting between knowing they're there and then changing your behaviour, going off something that you already know is there, but then someone tells you it's there, if that makes sense. So you know what do you think about that now? Like w when you in in years in advance from when you started that page, like knowing how many there are, could could alerting people go too far?
speaker-1: That's true. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, no question. ⁓ I don't think we need to know, to be honest. But if someone sees a shark, then I think I mean that's that's close enough to worry about it. Mm-hmm. ⁓ but the ⁓ what do they call the the listening stations, they're half a kilometer out. So ⁓ it's really debatable whether you need to know that. That there's a shark half a kilometer out, 'cause it could be a kilometer out. 'Cause they ⁓ they detect ⁓ tag sharks up to five hundred meters away. ⁓ and of course they they happen in In most days there's a there's a shark within a kilometre of a a surf break. Statistics show that. ⁓ so you know, do you want to get out of the water every time? It's crazy. Yeah.
speaker-0: Yeah, I feel for Sydney and that area because they're obviously living through a similar situation to what Balina lived through in two thousand fifteen. And the shark alarm's now going off with every sighting. Yeah. And that alarm just sends fear through anyone who's uneducated.
speaker-1: On other hand, you eventually get used to it and figure that it's a ⁓ a false alarm. And so there's that other side to it, which is that people will ignore the alarm.
speaker-0: Yeah, that that yeah, that's alert behaviour. I think just going like a snapshot in time of what they're going through right now is that it goes off and it's up to you to interpret what that alarm means. They obviously want you to get out of the water, but that shark could just be fifty to seventy metres out cruising north to south along the beach and had no interaction or no plan to interact with humans. And so it's it feels like there's a need to alert with the relevant information.
speaker-1: Well what I would yeah, ⁓ what I would suggest ⁓ is that the information goes to a ⁓ a drone operator who then monitors the vicinity. So as I said before, it's hard to concentrate for more than a couple of hours on a screen. ⁓ so you know, if you're a drone operator and you've just heard that there's a shark in the area, you'll be extra vigilant.
speaker-0: To make it useful. What's thoughts on these automated drones ⁓ that are gonna go up? Okay, they're about to they're about to or they already have implement one at Create where it's Yeah, exactly. So there's someone on a screen but they're not operating the drone, they're working from home or they're in an office.
speaker-1: Artificial intelligence, is it? There is a person monitoring it.
speaker-0: Well there'd be a person monitoring the footage, I believe. Yeah. So the drone would go up, flies itself, can return itself to the battery to power up, goes back out again, and essentially it uses that AI or the person on the computer analyzing ⁓ to then use an alert system. So I think that's about to come out, which would be really cool. It's made me thought a lot think a lot about, you know, the what that drone does. And how it operates physically itself can be an alert system to that human in the water if they have that education. Like it's say if it's just seventy meters out and hovering at a certain level following that shark, then that would potentially mean that it's okay currently. It's just watching its behavior to see if it acts any any way or if it's agitated. And then that so that's like you could watch that and almost understand what that shark could be doing. And then if that drone was then to move closer to the human, that would be like, all right. Probably time to go in, or there could even be a light system where it could be ⁓ like a traffic light almost like green just means that it's hovering watching. This shark doesn't seem to be interested right now. ⁓ orange could be look, we're seeing some unfamiliar behaviours where we're a little bit uncertain. So take precaution if you want. It's almost like leave it in the surfers' choice or the swimmers, and then red could be like, get the fuck out of there.
speaker-1: Sure.
speaker-0: ⁓ yeah, what's your thoughts on like do you feel like that could be a solution?
speaker-1: Not a solution, no, because for a c couple of reasons, ⁓ is y you can't see ⁓ a dark shape against a a dark reef. So you you need the contrast. Obviously there are some times ⁓ some places and times of day when sharks are very clear, but you only have the shark only has to be a couple of meters ⁓ below the surface for it to be a blurry shape that ⁓ somebody might not be able to discern. So no, I I don't have a lot of faith in it. But the biggest problem ⁓ if we need ⁓ people monitoring ⁓ a screen from dawn till dusk is the number of surf breaks. So ⁓ obviously if if ⁓ you know if a council wants to invest in you know protecting its local beaches, then that's a decision they can make. But the state government it's not gonna fork out enough to 'cause I mean honestly how many surf breaks are there in New South Wales. There's five hundred and fifty named breaks. That's not including random beach breaks. So there's over a thousand surf breaks. Every single one of them are exposed to shark attack. So I I can't see the government I mean there was a paper in twenty twenty four, ⁓ Pedden and Branda, ⁓ and they ⁓ were complaining, this sort of the ⁓ the thrust of the argument w that so much money was being spent on ⁓ shark mitigation. ⁓ twenty million at I think twenty one point four million per year. ⁓ when ⁓ only a few people ⁓ are attacked per year. ⁓ only a few fatalities ⁓ per year. And ⁓ what is it, drownings is like a hundred and something per year. ⁓ and only a small fraction. I think it's like I don't know what the figure is, but it's a small fraction of the twenty million. ⁓ so they They figure that ⁓ too much money is being spent. But I mean, in all honesty, if if money's an issue, I think it'd be cheaper just to kill the sharks, if money is an issue. 'Cause I mean, the reason that they're spending so much money on ⁓ on ⁓ shark mitigation is not to protect humans, it's to protect the sharks from the other option, which is to kill them. Do you get the point?
speaker-0: Yeah, I get the point, mate. Let's move, let's move into that because this is somewhere where you said, you know, you've been researching a lot on the other side. And this is obviously moving to the other side now, in terms of the management of sharks or aka carving sharks. Now, I I've got a little quote here from something, I think it's a quote, or my little notes that I've taken. You said, charge with emotion. Activists insist that mankind is a real monster and that sharks are the actual victims, along with other innocent sea creatures caught in shark net. So you're basically saying that humans are not all, but this group are citing, you know, nature against mankind in a way. ⁓ Yeah, can you speak speak to that?
speaker-1: Okay, yeah, I think you that's a quote from an article that was ⁓ using a ⁓ an idea from a Russian ⁓ semiologist, semiotician I think. His name was ⁓ Mikhail Paktin and he ⁓ it's the carnivalesque inversion of hierarchies and so there's this rebellion against mankind, ⁓ thinking that we can control nature ⁓ to make life More comfortable for ourselves. ⁓ so the environmentalists ⁓ have inverted that. And ⁓ I feel that ⁓ we are victims of this ⁓ this attitude to this criticism of mankind. That ⁓ I mean I see it a lot online. There's ⁓ people saying that it's about time that nature got back at mankind. I think that while you There's an interesting point of view there that's there's some validity to it. It's I think it's a bit rough to impose it on individuals who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
speaker-0: So with shark management, are you pro management at the moment, given the situation in Australia?
speaker-1: ⁓ think the ⁓ the bull shark population should be reduced. ⁓ and I also think that ⁓ see the problem is that ⁓ there's no point in me saying what I actually think, which is that ⁓ grey whites should be called as well, because ⁓ there was a paper, science paper published just last year, that ⁓ gives a you know solid argument ⁓ in favor of continuing the protection of great whites. So they're saying that they're still in danger. They're so endangered in the fact that they're afraid that there's going to be inbreeding within the population. Now, it's a really solid ⁓ piece of research. And so if a politician or any, you know, policy maker in this ⁓ field that ⁓ reads that, they're they're never gonna I mean there's no point in this on our side arguing for the ⁓ for colouring great whites when you know we we live in a society that respects science as much as we do. Now I don't know whether it's true, but you know it's a solid piece of research. And so I'm not prepared to to go there. So I I mean I I ⁓ I think that one thing that I would like to achieve is ⁓ see I don't get feedback from DPI or any of the scientists. And I've criticized them on a number of ⁓ issues that Wh which is just simply ⁓ latent misrepresentation of data. Okay. Now, what the the the big problem, ⁓ the the big stumbling block, I think, is that they s many of them sincerely believe that the number of sharks is not the issue. Like this stems from the fact that you often see ⁓ sharks in close proximity to people. And so that ⁓ supports this idea that sharks aren't interested in people and so it wouldn't matter how many sharks are in the area, that's not what influences a shark to attack a person. Okay. The only problem is that ⁓ it seems ⁓ kinda obvious that the more sharks there are, the greater the likelihood of there being a shark that is going to attack somebody. And so that's why that's the rationale behind culling, obviously. ⁓ so this was ⁓ this the the the argument ⁓ that they used to support this ⁓ point of view, it was a piece of research done in nineteen published in nineteen ninety four ⁓ in Hawaii, where ⁓ seventeen years of ⁓ culling ⁓ data ⁓ hadn't affected the number of shark attacks. Okay, and so what the ⁓ what these scientists do this occurred in the ⁓ in the Senate inquiry into shark mitigation in twenty seventeen Two shark scientists, one ⁓ Professor Muick, I think her name first name's Jessica, and ⁓ shark biologist ⁓ Amanda Morgan. She th they both said that according to this study, ⁓ approximately five thousand sharks ⁓ had been killed ⁓ without any effect on the ⁓ rate of shark attacks. Okay, that sounds terrible, but the thing is that it's ⁓ it's technically true, but it's misrepresenting the ⁓ the data because ⁓ over a thousand of those sharks ⁓ hadn't even been born yet. They were in the in they were unborn sharks ⁓ in ⁓ pregnant females. So that brings the number down a fair bit. and many of the sharks, another couple of thousand, were non-target species that presented no danger to humans anyway. So the actual ⁓ number ⁓ ⁓ i the actual number of dangerous sharks I'm I'm trying to think what the number was. is ⁓ Let me see if I can find the number just so.
speaker-0: Get it right. Try and find it. That's good. It's funny, my mate actually mentioned this this morning. ⁓ I was chatting about yeah, everything and you know, we're coming up with topics and things for the project and he cited this study. ⁓ and then you've just gone and bought it and I'd never heard of it before. ⁓ 'cause to me it's ⁓ it's such an interesting one around that. Like anyone who's Pro management, I like to ask, you know, what at what point do you measure success with that? You know what I mean? Because if you go and start to manage a population and then things go okay for several years, but then there's an incident, how do you manage the validity and success of a management protocol if there's still fatalities occurring? ⁓ and so that that's where that was raised, which will which will be a question for you, I guess, after you find this data. Okay, so the
speaker-1: paper is Weatherby ⁓ Lowen Crow, nineteen ninety four. It's called A Review of Shark Control in Hawaii with recommendations for future research. Four thousand six hundred and sixty eight sharks were killed. one thousand eight hundred and nineteen were pups, unborn pups. So that brings the number down a lot. And ⁓ the figure ended up being two thousand and eighty eight Sharks of which only twenty percent were twenty two percent were tiger sharks. And so that is and It's about two hundred and two and two eighty eight. Okay, that's four hundred and sixty. So four hundred and sixty tiger sharks were killed over a seventeen year period. And we'll divide it by seventeen. That's twenty eight per year. Now ⁓ You also have to consider that Hawaii has twelve hundred kilometres of coastline. And so twenty eight sharks per year over that stretch is insignificant if you compare it to Queensland, which has ⁓ I think it's three hundred and thirty sharks per year ⁓ over a a three hundred kilometre stretch. So that's fifty times more sharks have been culled in Queensland. And so if they're gonna be saying that ⁓ see they they're citing ⁓ they're misquoting or they're they're misrepresenting ⁓ a study that doesn't really represent the rate ⁓ the ⁓ the argument that they're presenting, which is that culling doesn't reduce the rate of shark attacks. And so this is where this this graph up here is so interesting because that goes from From north to south, that block there, all the the dark ⁓ bars, that's ⁓ Great Whites. And ⁓ you can see that the the section here i is where the shark nets are. And north of ⁓ the graph is Queensland. ⁓ and so we and we know that there are many more shark attacks in northern New South Wales than than Queensland. So Of course, N Northern New South Wales also benefit slightly from the fact that so many sharks are are culled in Queensland because the sharks travel along the coast. But even so you can see that there's a a massive benefit in at least in terms of reducing the the population of sharks in the area. So Queensland and Metropolitan New South Wales, Southern Queensland and Re metropolitan New South Wales. have the shark nets and we can see from the number of sharks. This this graph is of ⁓ sharks caught on smart drum lines. And so the assumption is that the number of sharks caught on the smart drum lines is an indication of the number of sharks in the area, which is pretty straightforward. What they're doubting is that the number of sharks in an area ⁓ represents the the risk to humans. So that they they doubt that. And they cite this Hawaiian study as evidence. But the thing is it's pretty clear from that graph above my head that ⁓ the the shark nets are reducing the number of sharks in the area. And if you consider Queensland's ⁓ culling of sharks and the and the how rare it is to ⁓ I mean they they have shark attacks in southern Queensland, but they're pretty rare compared with northern New South Wales. And so this also relates to that ⁓ other piece that I wrote critic ⁓ sorry, it was a response to ⁓ The Honourable Emma Hurst, MLC, ⁓ on the issue of sharkness. That's the title. ⁓ and she misrepresented this ⁓ study ⁓ from twenty twenty four, I think, ⁓ by whoverneers ⁓ that out and and this included s ⁓ some of the authors, I think four of the authors were actually worked for DPI. And so they put together this ⁓ this paper, which ⁓ it was strange because See, I this is an interesting problem that we that I think we're faced with is trying to work out ⁓ what the truth is when the academics, the scientists, can't be published if they're saying something that rocks the boat. So you've got the the ⁓ environ you they they're expected to tow the line, their careers depend on it. It's it's you know, I mean, I don't know that I'd be any different. You know, if I'd spent twenty years or whatever. In a field, and of course she's surrounded by people who are environmentalists. ⁓ the strange thing is that in this paper, And ⁓ pretty good arguments are set forth which I th which clearly contradict the superficial interpretation of the paper. So it's almost as if Hoover Neus has decided that he's gotta at least give the environmentalists it's almost like clickbait, just some superficial interpretation that they can run with, and that is that shark nets don't work. But if you dig down into if you actually read the paper, and this is a strange thing, is that that I don't think these academics are even reading these papers. I mean, I I can't understand how you would ⁓ suggest, as this woman in did in Parliament, that ⁓ shark nets don't work. So the the the idea was that ⁓ because there was no difference between ⁓ neighbouring beaches, so shark netted beaches and non shark netted beaches in terms of the number of shark attacks, you're suggesting that shark nets don't work. Okay? But as you can see from the graph above my head, the y you mustn't compare the neighboring beaches. You compare neighboring regions where you have because I mean sharks travel along the coast. And so if you're gonna be r taking sharks out of one beach in the metropolitan area, it's it's all all also protecting neighboring beaches, probably for ten kilometers, because sharks are traveling along the coast. So ⁓ that was my criticism of it. And and that information was in the ouvenir's paper. But the thing is that it wasn't emphasized. And and there was plenty of room. This is what puzzles me about these academics is I'm wondering. I mean I think that I mean that there's another paper from ⁓ from this year, Riley, Madeline Riley, ⁓ Charlie Hoverneers and ⁓ what's his name Corey Corey Bradshaw. ⁓ and they also cite this Hawaiian study. misrepresenting the the data, claiming that ⁓ that the number of sharks in an area ⁓ is not an indication of risk. And you just think, well, surely they know that that that's not true. But they're perpetuating the the myth. And of course the ⁓ the environmental environmental movement just wants, you know, a headline and and I don't know, ⁓ it it does take an effort to to dig into the you know, to read a paper and to read it thoroughly enough to really understand what you're talking about. And, you know, like my education is linguistic, so I'm I'm familiar with some of the the strategies that I reckon they're using to to obfuscate, to to to you know. And when you think that the the people who are making the decisions, the policymakers, you know, my God, they're bombarded with information. They've got to read so much stuff. They just wanna get the the summary. We're not going to read 70 pages, you know, in a report. That's that's one of the criticisms that I had is of a report ⁓ a couple of years ago, authored by ⁓ Darren McPhee and Craig Blount. This is ⁓ the government funded report on the ⁓ state of shark mitigation measures measures in New South Wales. Seven times he said, they say, that ⁓ the ⁓ The smart drum lines and ⁓ and drones are a hundred percent effective. Seven times sorry, six times in a seventy page report. They s they explicitly say a hundred percent success. And which is kinda bizarre when you think, well, you know, so there was no shark attack when these ⁓ were operating, whether it's smart drum lines or w or or the drones. Then toward the end, this is like page seventy basically, ⁓ They admit that ⁓ they need more time to really evaluate ⁓ whether ⁓ the the technology is having an effect. Th there's just not enough data from shark attacks to know. And so it's they they completely contradicted themselves. But I mean who's gonna read a seventy page report that thoroughly? You know, it's nutty. So so I I don't know, they're they're they're ideologues, that's what I I reckon that that they ⁓ They use whatever, you know, rhetorical devices they can to to ⁓ to get people ⁓ to you know, to have shark policies that favour the environment at our expense.
speaker-0: Why do you think that nets are effective?
speaker-1: Only because of this graph above my head.
speaker-0: Mm. But what does the graph suggest in terms of nets?
speaker-1: Well, the the population of sharks is ⁓ the number of sharks near the coast is much greater where there are no nets. So the nets ⁓ in the metropolitan area obviously the you see this is a population of sharks that travel north and south along the entire coast, but they're skirting wide of the metropolitan area and they're coming closer to the coast ⁓ on the north coast. So that's that's what this graph is depicting.
speaker-0: Right. And so with a net, can you just alert I mean, I I know a fair bit about them. I think that they're they're not from the bottom of the ocean completely to the surface. And if a beach is netted, it's not netted completely. So therefore depthwise, it may only be half the depth at best, and then it might only run for a hundred or so metres where there could be a lot of open area there for a shark to come through. Why do you think with such a minimal amount of space netted would it have such a drastic effect on the shark's behaviour?
speaker-1: ⁓ we don't know.
speaker-0: Just you like yeah, your just your theory, mate. And I do like before how you said I don't have a theory. ⁓ yeah, I have one. Okay.
speaker-1: No, well I I mean I know the the the the arguments. ⁓ there was an interesting one that ⁓ was ⁓ Feller he ⁓ wrote an an article in ⁓ Beechpread a couple of months ago and he ⁓ drew attention to the fact that the sharks in South ⁓ South Africa, I think it was off Cape Town, ⁓ deserted the area after ⁓ gr ⁓ these ⁓ killer whales had ⁓ attacked a few of them. And ⁓ they were being washed up on the beach without their livers. Okay. Now he was suggesting that if the sharks ⁓ in South Africa were learning to avoid the area because there was a threat there, then his argument was that maybe that's why they're avoiding netted areas because they they see dead sharks. So when they encounter a dead shark in a net It must register as as danger to them. So that was his theory. I don't know whether it's true. And ⁓ in fact there's a paper from last year that suggested that it wasn't true. ⁓ actually ⁓ this year. And so it's very hard to know ⁓ what the truth is. I d I don't know. I I I I kinda like that idea that that they see a dead shark and if that's the case then we need to leave the the dead shark in the net, you know. Not
speaker-0: Is there many I actually I heard about that yeah, I've heard quite a bit about the orcas in South Oz, but then I've also heard that they were they were gone a couple of years before that and that people are just using that theory but they were already the numbers were low. So look
speaker-1: recently read it just said that ⁓ they were being fished out.
speaker-0: Yeah, a lot of things they were getting fished out. Some of the photographers that worked extensively there and boat operators were saying that there was a huge drop in numbers in the years leading up to those ⁓ orcas being there. So that was sort of like, How can you blame someone that wasn't even on the crime scene? ⁓ now how many sharks end up? How many, let's just say the three sharks, right? Bulls, tigers and whites, I guess, and bronzies. How many of those end up? in the nets for the sharks to learn that we don't want to be cut we don't want to get stuck in that net.
speaker-1: Yeah, that's a question. ⁓ very few sharks are getting caught in nets these days. Which ⁓ seems to indicate that they're that they're not doing anything. You know, not ⁓ not doing what we're expecting them to, which is catch sharks. ⁓ especially if they've got a if other sharks are then supposed to see. See if there are fewer sharks in the area, then obviously ⁓ fewer sharks are gonna get caught. So I don't know, maybe the the what happens is ⁓ when you have a lot of sharks they get a lot get caught. they sharks avoid the area. They get into a a pattern of avoiding the area. Then they slowly creep back. Then you have to have a an influx of many sharks for more to be caught, for them to discover that it's not safe. So I don't know. There must be you get what I'm getting at? I understand the point of view that if there are so few sharks getting caught in the nets, then maybe they're not performing ⁓ the the function that that we expect. And then it seems terrible that so many other species are gonna get caught. But my fear is that if you remove the shark nets ⁓ in twenty years the sharks will come back in and they ⁓ won't be deterred again. So I mean that's that's just conjecture. I have no idea if that's true.
speaker-0: Yeah, well it's an interesting thing to think about, well, if there's not many sharks being caught in them, then therefore the sharks aren't going to observe other sharks being caught in them, which sort of detracts from that argument. And then that they are not really occupying a huge amount of space, the shark could just go around it. If they're learning the behavior not to go into the net because there's sharks, then they could learn that behaviour to go around them. So I'm just curious as to why you feel you wanted to keep the shark nets in there and and put that petition going. ⁓ you must you must obviously have some backing behind your reasoning behind that. Other than I mean you're citing the graph above your head, which you're speaking about, you know, sharks numbers in metropolitan areas, but you know, to feel strongly about getting a petition going to leave them in, you must have some theories of your own.
speaker-1: ⁓ well actually ⁓ I ⁓ I really didn't expect if if I I I know that and have always felt that the government would never extend shark nets into northern New South Wales or South South I I just I I knew that was never gonna happen. What I wanted to know and unfortunately the government has has has not explained responded in the way that I'd hoped, I just wanted to push them because you see they've been ignoring me for a couple of years. Every time I write to them with some, you know, what I think are pertinent questions, I get this standard reply. I've got about six or seven replies from, you know, different ministers, 'cause they change ministers every couple of years. ⁓ and it's just a standard reply that says, We're doing this and we're doing that, and we're, you know, ⁓ we have a we want to protect humans as well as sharks, and you just think, well, you're not protecting humans. So, you know, stop pretending that you are. ⁓ Anyway, so ⁓ I just wanted an explanation. I wanted this I wanted an answer to this question of the ⁓ this belief that many shark scientists have, and it's not all of them, because I I've been in touch with one who says that he he he does believe that shark nets work. ⁓ the ⁓ this idea that the number of sharks in an area does not correlate with risk. I wanted an answer to that. And I thought that I could get it by doing the petition. ⁓ but I just got another standard reply that said we're doing you know, we've spent twenty two million, two point so many million on ⁓ these ⁓ innovative, you know, programs and you think, Well, you're telling me, for God's sake, these people know that I'm critical of it. They know my reasoning, you know. I've been talking to them about it for for years, you know.
speaker-0: Mm. So instead of being instead of doing it because you genuinely thought that it would im it would influence the safety of human life, you were more prodding as an experiment to get a action out of DPI.
speaker-1: Well we n well yeah, but I mean this is information that we need. We need to know whether there is an association correlation between the number of sharks and shark risk. See, this is a belief that the scientific many in the scientific community have, that it doesn't matter how many sharks there are, and so there's no need to cut. That's that's what they they say. I mean, it was in this recent paper by Riley, ⁓ Hoover Nears and and Bradshaw. It's it's like a it's a month ago. And they cite that Hawaiian study saying that ⁓ on the basis of this Hawaiian study, ⁓ there's no connection between ⁓ there's no benefit to culling. So th that's their argument that it's fallacious, completely.
speaker-0: Yeah, I hear I hear that. I guess would could releasing the nets also be a way to get the answer? 'Cause what other studies could be implemented do you think to get this data that you want them to bring forward?
speaker-1: Sorry, I don't understand.
speaker-0: Well, so you're saying like keeping them in you're unsure. Keeping the nets in currently, you're unsure about the effectiveness of keeping human life safe.
speaker-1: Well yeah, but I mean in the long term I think it would be really risky to ⁓ to remove the nets in Sydney. In the long term it's not gonna have any effect i in the short term. Like this is totally my opinion and and not everyone agrees with me on this. You know, and it's it it you know, ⁓ try I'm trying to be as ⁓ balanced as I can because I don't know that the nets are having that much effect in the short term. But if you remove them, then over twenty years there's gonna be ⁓ more ⁓ sharks surviving and exploring the metropolitan area. So I don't think ⁓ so long as we haven't got ⁓ an alternative and and we haven't I think we have to keep the nets.
speaker-0: So I guess yeah, so the Nets one of the roles that the Nets play, if I'm hearing right, would be to ⁓ also kill a shark that swum into it, which would then limit the numbers. So could could that just be done through culling? In your in your yeah, like management, commercial flight management.
speaker-1: Fishing you men. The the ⁓ the benefit okay, i it it depends on whether the ⁓ the sharks are deterred by the sight of a dead shark. So if that's how they work, then we then the nets are better than culling because fewer sharks will be killed than ⁓ than if you cull them. 'Cause I mean if you're culling the sharks to reduce the ⁓ the risk of attack, you're gonna have to reduce the the population by a lot. Like what, fifty percent? Eighty percent, you know, to make to get ⁓ that sort of ⁓ reduction in the rate of shark attacks. That's why I favor ⁓ shark nets, which is simply because fewer sharks would need to die in order to deter other sharks from entering the area.
speaker-0: Mm, I see. Hello listeners. Quick pause here for this episode's code word, which is forever. Back to the app. So what's yeah, what's going on there with that change in nets or
speaker-1: So this is a ⁓ a paper from 2022. It's Colfax and Butcher. Butcher actually works for DPI, so it's a bit curious that this suggestion has not been picked up. But the idea is to realign the nets perpendicular to the coast. And the reason for that is that sharks travel along the coast, they're migratory. Now, ⁓ one possible reason for I mean, they they don't say I I don't I don't communicate with them, they don't communicate with me, so I don't know what the reasoning is for not adopting that. Approach. But I suspect it's because whales also travel along the coast and they're afraid that there's going to be more whales caught in these nets if they're aligned perpendicular to the coast. If that's the case, then there's a good reason to reduce the height of the net so that there's more space for air-breathing mammals above the net.
speaker-0: Did you have much support with your petition to keep Nets in? Have you had much support?
speaker-1: No, God no. No I had so much hatred online it was extraordinary, you know, like I think most of the time I was just attacking ⁓ or or defending myself against ⁓ people who really sincerely believe that ⁓ nature is getting back at humanity. And my argument against that is that it's a bit much to expect ⁓ individuals to to pay for humanity. I mean, it's the whole community that's suffering, but these are actual individuals and the family members who have to suffer because in their in their eyes, ⁓ it's about time that the planet got back at humanity or man you know, mankind destroying the planet. So that was an argument that I I faced a lot. A real lot. ⁓ and so this is the strange thing about this topic is that there are so many different ways of approaching it. And ⁓ All I can say is that it depends on what you value, you know. And but on the other hand, I think that people who have decided the biggest blockage to this topic, I reckon, and probably politics altogether, is ⁓ that people identify with their side. And so long as you're identifying with ⁓ an ideology, then you're just not listening to the other side. Okay. And so I know that I'm ⁓ seriously outnumbered by people ⁓ by environmentalists. on this issue. ⁓ and so I'm being pushed to to be ⁓ to be pragmatic and to look at all possible alternatives. In the beginning, when I was, you know, probably traumatised by the whole shark crisis, I was adamant that, you know, the numbers ⁓ be reduced. But there's good scientific reasoning behind the ⁓ the fear of ⁓ a what's called a trophic cascade. And so ⁓ if there's a ⁓ the argument goes that if there's ⁓ no if you reduce the number of apex predators, then there's an increased number of ⁓ moderately sized fish and and then they overgraze the next level down. So it's a disruption to the ecosystem. And the argument that you often hear from environmentalists is that ⁓ you know then it'll impact humanity and so a few Deaths now is saving thousands in the future. Okay. Now, ⁓ whether that's true or not, I I don't know it, but I'm not prepared to to fight against it because it's it's very well argued in the scientific literature, you know. So I'm trying to ⁓ figure out how we can ⁓ reduce impact on ⁓ on the ecosystem. And probably the the best suggestion ⁓ is out of reefs. And this comes from another shark scientist, ⁓ Andre Afonso, who's the Brazilian ⁓ shark scientist who did a PhD on the tri ⁓ shark crisis in ⁓ Recife, Brazil. And ⁓ it was just a a paragraph to right at the end, it was kind of an afterthought ⁓ that outer reefs could attract sharks ⁓ away from the coast. And so this is ⁓ mimicking ⁓ that what's it called? ⁓ On land you can ⁓ it's called diversionary feeding. ⁓ and it's used in places like ⁓ Canada to attract deer and elk away from the highways. ⁓ so we wouldn't literally be feeding the sharks, but would be creating an environment where ⁓ you have a proliferation of sea life that presumably, hopefully, draws sharks ⁓ away from the coast ⁓ and therefore away from humans, but ⁓ I'm suggesting here that it's not just away from humans, but also away from the nets. And so what I'm advocating is ⁓ a kill zone that's within a kilometer of the coast, ⁓ reducing the number of air-breathing mammals by reducing the height of the the nets, aligning the the nets so that they definitely catch ⁓ creatures traveling along the coast. and hopefully the impact is going to be ⁓ not severe on the ecosystem because we've got these outer reefs that are creating ⁓ more ⁓ habitat for sea life. So I think that's sort of it in a nutshell.
speaker-0: So how do these outer reefs look? Can you explain them to me? How they would like cost, ⁓ size, what would be on them?
speaker-1: Afonso was referring to ⁓ these purpose ⁓ sunk ⁓ ships ⁓ and they're fair way off Recife. I think they're like ten kilometers out. ⁓ and I think they were ⁓ sunk for ⁓ maybe diving recreation. ⁓ I know that sort of thing happens. So I mean ⁓ it's obviously an enormously costly enterprise to have ⁓ a chain of reefs going for at least a thousand kilometers or two thousand kilometers if you want to do the whole New South Wales coast. But I would imagine that ⁓ over fifty years it it makes sense. ⁓ and this problem isn't going to go away.
speaker-0: Yeah, I remember we did chat on the phone, as I mentioned earlier, like a year or two ago, and you told me about that and I'd never heard of it before and I haven't heard of it since. Have you been putting this to anyone to see what sort of reception it has or have you heard it come up in Australian waters at all?
speaker-1: ⁓ yeah, I did actually ⁓ mention it to ⁓ a shark scientist at DPI and he said it was ⁓ risky or debatable whether it would ⁓ it could make the problem worse. So, you know, I don't know if that's true. He doesn't know if it's true.
speaker-0: Did he provide any reasoning why he thinks it might make it worse?
speaker-1: Okay, there's ⁓ it's this is ⁓ apparently a a recent understanding in the shark community that ⁓ in the shark science community that the ⁓ because most of the shark attacks are three point five meters in length thereabouts, ⁓ which is not a fully grown ⁓ white pointer, the biggest sharks ⁓ a fair way out in very deep water. And so the question is, why are these ⁓ medium-sized adults ⁓ on the coast? And the theory is that they're avoiding predation by the larger sharks. Okay. And so I suspect this is just pure conjecture on my part, I suspect that the ⁓ the reefs, he'd be afraid that the reefs would draw in the larger sharks and the ⁓ and more medium sized three point five meter sharks would ⁓ end up on the coast. So I mean it is tampering with the you know, nature, so it's hard to know what, you know, if there's any any unintended consequences. But ⁓ I mean the reason that I'm ⁓ exploring all these options is that I as I've already described, ⁓ I have no faith in ⁓ non lethal methods. And it's not because I enjoy ⁓ you know the the side of creatures getting caught in nets. I have done enough reading to know that ⁓ that they're ⁓ that these non lethal methods are inadequate, even in combination. Certainly if you're gonna have a contest, you might as well have ⁓ jet skis and and and drones, etcetera ⁓ do whatever you can for, you know, when during the summer when you've got kids ⁓ playing between the swimming between the flags. You know, there are certain situations where you you might as well ⁓ use all of these non lethal methods. But ⁓ if you want to actually reduce the rate of shark attacks, ⁓ the problem is that ⁓ surfers are distributed so widely along the coast and surf between dawn and dust. So there's just no way that I mean there's just no way that there's going to be enough funding. It's going to be a hundred million dollars a year, which is not going to happen. As I I mentioned to you before the ⁓ the Pedden and Brand paper from twenty twenty four complained that so much money was being spent on shark attacks when there are many more drownings. And far less money spent on ⁓ on life saving. So, ⁓ I I mean, you know, it'd be awesome if we could have ⁓ enough money to to protect every surf break with an AI ⁓ drone. That it sounds cool. But I mean you just gotta be really careful not to just think that it there's gonna be a technological solution. Because ⁓ you're not gonna be a no nothing, not AI or human. is going to be able to discern a a a a dark shape against a dark reef. ⁓ and as I said, a few meters down in the water is blurry, even from above, even on a good day. It's going to be blurry and and and but I mean, you know, the the turbulence in the water of any ⁓ surf break is ⁓ creating ⁓ turbid conditions often. I mean, obviously there are occasions when the when you get crystal clear ⁓ conditions. And ⁓ so, you know, you just gotta try not to imagine that that's what it's all like all the time because the vast majority of times that ⁓ that you're out in the water, ⁓ the conditions are not conducive to, you know, spotting a shark even from above. Which is just the reality. And so I've just gotta impress upon people that they've gotta try hard not to ⁓ have so much faith in in a technological solution because the the conditions are just not conducive to ⁓ detecting sharks. Okay, that so that's just drones. The other one is ⁓ the ⁓ the Smart Drone Line program, which I ⁓ I'm very critical of. ⁓ so I don't know if you want me to go into the details.
speaker-0: Please.
speaker-1: Okay, so I did a ⁓ a case study of the ⁓ coast from Ballinet to Lenox Head, so fifteen kilometers, and I found that for every shark tag shark that was detected, there were two tag sharks in the air at the same time. So if you take that as as a ⁓ an estimate of how many sharks ⁓ just those tag sharks, then that's a one third reduction in the risk. Okay. Thing is that not all sharks are tagged, and so there could be twice as many. Sharks, so instead of just two, there could be four. There could also be tag sharks passing through because the listing stations, there's only ⁓ four listing stations over ⁓ the 15 kilometers. And so it's not unreasonable to think that a shark, a tag shark, could also get through. So the point is that ⁓ 20% if there's ⁓ one in five sharks. being relocated, then that's a 20% reduction in risk. The thing that I also add is that you might as well reduce that by half because 50% of the sharks that are being relocated were probably leaving the area anyway. So statistically, ⁓ sharks are either coming and going. And so there's no benefit in relocating a shark that was already leaving the area. And so it's it's a 10% reduction in risk. And this program is terribly expensive and of course it it gives them data which they value because they can ⁓ track sharks. But ⁓ it's ⁓ it's not a ⁓ it's not much of a reduction. I mean The ⁓ government's response to this criticism is that a combination of measures will mount, you know, and and if everybody has a a shark shield on, then that's a sixty percent reduction. And so they think that this mounting ⁓ of all of the different ⁓ options, ⁓ you know, non lethal measures will end up saving a life. But each one of them, ⁓ there are negative aspects to each of these measures. I mean, if you want to talk about ⁓ Shark Shield, my experience of Shark Shield, I I used the Shark Shield brand and rappeller. I I spent two and a half years enjoying what seemed like a ⁓ freedom in the surf because I felt invincible. I was surfing more often, longer and in more perilous conditions. Because I felt invincible and I d I don't think that that would be unusual. When you see waves and you think that you ⁓ have the you know the benefit of the doubt because you've got a a shark shield, you're just gonna paddle out. You're gonna feel like you've you're safe. But the point is that ⁓ I was surfing so much more, Smith knows so much more exposed that this sixty percent reduction that they estimate in risk, ⁓ fell to zero because I was out there so much more. So this is actually called ⁓ damn, what's it called? ⁓ Peltzman effect. It it was ⁓ described in relation to ⁓ seat belts. There was fear that ⁓ seat belts would make people overconfident and drive ⁓ more dangerously. So there are lots of examples of it where ⁓ a technology is ⁓ feared because it makes people overconfident. That's exactly my experience. No, I mean what what I don't think the government is ever going to appreciate, and and and anyone who's on the other side, ⁓ I mean I'm hoping that environmental surfaces can understand what I'm saying. If you are watching waves going unridden and you know that the risk is marginal, you're gonna paddle out. I mean you you might do a few things to protect yourself, like You know, maybe you'll have ⁓ shark shield or maybe you'll put stripes on your board or or ⁓ whatever, you know. ⁓ I mean what most people do is they ⁓ just stick with people but stick with the crowd. But you're not gonna if you're a keen surfer, you're gonna paddle out. And I and and the only response that that I suppose people will get ⁓ will will will have to that attitude There's that ⁓ well it's your risk and you should suffer the consequences. But it's not just that person's risk, because sure enough there is a person who's gonna behave who's gonna take risks that they should accept as, you know, the consequences of. But as soon as you get half a dozen people out, then the tourist or the kid paddles out. So i is it their fault that they get attacked by a shark? So there's a human dimension that I think is missing when ⁓ people just want to blame the victim. Sure enough there are people who who take risks that that they ought not. But as soon as you get half a dozen people out there, even one, you know, you go and think, ⁓ well, you know, that halves my risk of attack.
speaker-0: ⁓ it's an interesting angle because when you just mentioned there when the kid paddles out, when there's already half a dozen and the kid paddles out in the end and happens to him, is it are we blaming him? I'm just trying to wrap my head around there's so many things there that you just spoke about, right? The sixty percent reduction, so you felt invincible. Yourself knowing a lot about sharks and studying them and being close to them in your community. It would s it seems ⁓ unusual that you trusted that number, knowing that, you know, these parts of technology were obviously tested in a way that is almost hard to give that number, I feel like in a wild environment, you know. So it's like that, it's like that, yeah, they can say that to you, but are you actually trusting it? It's almost like food, ⁓ food descriptions. It's like sure, you know, you can get a rough estimate of what's going on, but you also need to have the education and self-awareness to be like, I'm actually taking this decision to go in and I can't rely on something else to ⁓ sway me. ⁓ and so that's that part. So I'm trying I'm just trying to rack my brain here to get my point across is that, you know, what are we going for here? Are we going for there being absolutely no risk involved in paddling out into the water? Because if that kid paddles out and there's Half a dozen people. To me, he's an equal amount of risk to all those others, and he should then know that. And if he's wearing this technology that he feels keeps him a little bit safer, power to him or her. ⁓ but it feels like it's either eliminate all sharks or take humans out of the water for there not to for there not to be an encounter. ⁓
speaker-1: That's why I don't agree with culling. That's why I'm in favour of nets rather than culling. Because nets are not about culling. Nets are about trapping sharks. Sure they die, but it but in far fewer numbers than if you had ⁓ indiscriminate killing of of the whole population. Because I understand that the scientists will never agree to reducing the population because they you know, the politicians follow what the scientists believe. And and they sincerely believe and have argued very well in a paper. I'm not even gonna try to dispute that it even though we have anecdotal evidence that ⁓ there are more great whites, but they're saying that there that there aren't many great whites. That they're actually in in that the population is ⁓ is ⁓ at risk of inbreeding of all things, you know. So that's a it's a small population, then we're never gonna be a ⁓ able to convince the ⁓ the government to reduce the number of great whites. I mean they're technically ⁓ protected, but the scientific community is adamant about this. Okay, so I I I'm giving up on that. And the and unfortunately the the next option, because I just will not entertain non lethal methods. They just aren't up to scratch. Okay. ⁓ I'd love it if they were and as I said they they're suitable for certain situations. But it's not a solution for the whole surfing community. ⁓ so that's why I I I think that ⁓ shark nets, you know, altered in the way that I've suggested, without a reefs to draw sharks away from the the nets and people. You know, so I think there's ⁓ th this this combination ⁓ has potential. I I I I mean I I know that it's ⁓ gonna be crazy how much money has to be spent on these outer reefs, but I would imagine that it it can be done over decades. ⁓ and, you know, I I would say give up on the ⁓ smart drum lines. That's that's a waste of millions and millions of dollars. Give just give up on it. It's it's it's it's futile. As I just described, it's probably a ten percent reduction in risk. And that's in the area that they had deployed. They can only be deployed within sort of twenty kilometers of rivermouths. So there's half of the coastline isn't protected by them. So that brings the ten it brings up from ten percent down to five percent if half the coastline of of New South Wales isn't within twenty kilometers of ⁓ rivermouth. Because you need the boats to have timely access. ⁓ so I don't know. ⁓ I I mean I I totally understand people's concern. ⁓ I'm doing my best to to try to work out how we can ⁓ well not blame the kid for being attacked. I mean if if if that's what you're suggesting, he can't use a shark shield. Okay? The shark shield, because it's an electric jolt, hurts. It really hurts. The first time I got it I thought, My God, I'm not gonna get used to this. Like I thought it was ridiculous 'cause it's about a thousand dollar investment. But you get used to it, you know, because you just think, well, I I'll I'll persevere. I was getting a jolt probably three times a surf. Sometimes you you're duck diving. I remember there's one time I was duckdiving, ⁓ it was like the third wave in a set, and I was at that point where I had to hug my board and I got the biggest jolt. ⁓ I was at peak exertion. I mean, if I don't know, is that a a a danger to my Health, you know, which if you had a a weak heart, you're all of a sudden going, whack, it's a whack. So the funny thing is that you get used to it because you know that that's what's protecting you. If a shark comes close enough, it's that whack that's gonna deter the shark. But there's no way a kid is gonna use it. And you know, ⁓ the other thing to consider with ⁓ kids is that ⁓ there was a study done ⁓ where sharks were found to go for the smaller of two objects offered to it. And so if you've got a bunch of people you know in the surf ⁓ the kid's the most vulnerable. You know? So ⁓ and this is the thing that I think ties into what you were suggesting a moment ago with ⁓ the kid ⁓ joining that the the the crowd is that kids are ⁓ Teenagers are especially boys, are ⁓ predisposed to to risk taking, especially if they're encouraged not to. Now, there was this time ⁓ out at Northwall, ⁓ during the shark crisis, and of course everyone's, you know, conscious of the risk. There was a a choppy day, and you always feel like it's more risky when it's not, you know, a clean surf. ⁓ there were three of us, and I ⁓ three adults in this one Hit it, he must have been about 14. And ⁓ I know what the adults were doing. We were all ⁓ afraid. And ⁓ as a result, we were getting cleaned up by the odd set and getting dragged into the sandbar and sort of like pretending, ⁓ well, it's happened again. I just got but like you actually feel safer on the sandbar, you know, than hanging out in the deep water. And so we'd paddle back around and Anyway, this kid was hanging out for f further than all of us. And I came in ⁓ when it when the other guys came in, I I ended up deciding it was time. This is afternoon, you know, we this is after after sundown. And ⁓ I'm standing in waist deep water thinking, ⁓ god, is he gonna stay out there much longer? And 'cause I'm nervous, nervous way. And then I turned and saw on the ⁓ rock wall, which is sort of five metres above the surf, his mates and a girl. This is in the th chart thris, you know, this is right in the thick of it. And he was, you know, showing his bravado. He he was Doing what men do, young men do, you know, taking risks to show that he's cool. Okay, so I ⁓ I just think it's nutty to to to think that ⁓ kids aren't gonna do this. And it as as ⁓ as a community and and as someone ⁓ who's had the good fortune that I've had surfing for fifty years and especially through, you know, periods of very limited, almost non existent shark threat of shark attack, you know. Obviously it's my obligation to to try to ⁓ protect the younger generations. Was there
speaker-0: Nets in the water at Long Reef DY when Mercury was fatally attacked last year.
speaker-1: Look, I don't know for sure, but apparently.
speaker-0: Yeah, think there might have been. So this is where it's interesting and we'll move on from this in a moment, but right, so I hope I get this right. You know, there's you said technology creates a false sense of security. Yeah. But then in the paper in the papers I've read, you've also argued that the idea we can protect both humans and sharks is an illusion. Yeah. And so technology creates a false sense of security, like tick that, but then coexisting is an illusion. Yeah. And so where does that leave us? Because you're now saying the feeding station's out the back and the nets will take fatalities away.
speaker-1: Well, not completely. We'll reje I mean ⁓ this is the thing is that we're
speaker-0: No come. But isn't that sorry, just isn't that a false sense of security? 'Cause it's not going to take fatalities completely out. Right. So again, is it where does that false sense of security lie within your measures here?
speaker-1: ⁓ okay. So I don't mind the false sense of security so long as the risk is low. You know? ⁓ I mean, ⁓ Yeah, so ⁓ I mean ⁓ in a sense the full sense of security is great because at least then people are enjoying the ocean. Because I mean the risk is pretty pretty low. Okay, so over the ⁓ the period of the crisis, okay, that two year period, ⁓ when they're all those architects, ⁓ I was aware of how many people were surfing. Okay. I I I monitored it, okay, and I didn't write it down, but I was fully aware Of how many people were surfing and for how long. Okay. And so on that basis I was able to estimate that the risk was about one in ten thousand for every hour that you're in the water. Okay. Now if you're seeing waves pumping and there's no one out, Then one in ten thousand is totally doable. I mean, not for everyone, for sure. But if you're a dead set keen surfer and if you're young and you're and you're enthusiastic and you can't get many waves when it's crowded, you know, you're not gonna and and and this is another point that from the shark's point of view, it doesn't matter if there's five or fifty people out, you know. So long as there's a few people at each surf spot, you're not going to be reducing the rate of shark attacks by educating the people not to go surfing, because there's always going to be half a dozen people who paddle out in even perilous conditions. Because perilous conditions, and there was actually a study done in Reunion Island on their shark crisis. He worked out this is Leg Le Gabriel. He worked out that the risk was one in twenty four thousand at the worst spot on the island. So their their shark crisis was even worse than ours. ⁓ longer period and many more ⁓ fatalities. ⁓ and so one in twenty-four thousand, that's the worst, probably the worst in the world, ⁓ for any location during a s ⁓ any any shark hotspot. One in twenty four thousand ⁓ If you're seeing pumping barrels, you're not you're not gonna hold back. You know what I mean? But then the the altern you know, the the response to that is well, suck eggs if you get attacked. But I I I mean I just have to keep pushing back against that because it's our lifestyle. It's a it's a it's a glorious thing to do, and we can find a solution. But it is going to involve killing creatures.
speaker-0: It is gonna it is getting well.
speaker-1: There's just no way around it. There's going to be a lot of creatures dying. ⁓ you know, some people will, you know, characterise that as a holocaust, you know. But ⁓ compared with ⁓ commercial fishing, I think it's negligible.
speaker-0: Hm. So Okay, I'm just a bit confused 'cause earlier on you were saying you don't support you're currently not supporting lethal measures, is that right?
speaker-1: No, no, I don't agree with culling. So you don't I don't see shark nets as culling. So yeah, cull culling is to reduce the population. This is not designed to reduce the population. This is just to design to kill a few sharks to deter the ones that encounter a dead shark in a net. So it's a different concept. Now whether that's true, I don't know. That's that's a theory.
speaker-0: Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. Yeah. I I wasn't sure what we were talking about there. ⁓ now to go back to your s you were just speaking around the stats of shark attacks and you were saying perilous conditions. You know, when I think back to my incident and I'm sure some of the incidents you observed and certainly many members of Blight Club, and now that we're just speaking about the nets occurring at that beach at DY Longreef, Mercury Shalacus's fatality took place 10 o'clock in the morning on a sunny day with several people in the water. So these aren't perilous conditions that this is taking place in, ⁓ a lot of the time. Right. And I think that's where we've got to shift that mentality. And I also want to make note that suck eggs when someone gets attacked or blaming that person. That needs to shift. And I I don't I think majority of people feel that way. I think it's only the minute online who have no understanding. o of the whole situation throw that kind of shade o on the topic. ⁓ but yeah, so I think that whole risk and the perilous conditions needs to shift too because a lot of the incidents are going down on days that we've grown up and as people who live by the ocean think that it's safe. But it's actu that's when we've got to also shift the mentality because if we're prepared no matter what the conditions are like, then that may have a a likelihood of reducing that risk as well. And if we're incorporating some of these things. So now, yeah, what go back to bull sharks because it's it's an interesting topic around, you know, whites you're saying, not culling, but the nets, you know, if that happens to occur. But earlier in the conversation, we're going back a while now, you were saying that you're in favour of ⁓ you know, managing bull sharks, the numbers there. tell me why. Is there is there a is there a little Is there a least amount of ecological importance to a bull shark's life to a great white's, do you think?
speaker-1: No, I don't know. I don't know that. I ⁓ I've just read a few things, ⁓ not scientific but just opinions, that ⁓ that they are actually a disruption to the ecosystem. They're in such great numbers that they're over grazing on the next trophic level ⁓ in the ⁓ in the food chain. So ⁓ I'm afraid I mean I you see this is a What I think is the interesting story here isn't I mean, certainly it's interesting to come up with different ideas about how we're going to solve the problem, but the fascinating story here, if if you know, for for a journalist, is ⁓ this scandalous situation with academia. ⁓ the scientists not ⁓ not being able to openly ⁓ discuss this topic other than towing the environmental line. I I I I have gone through this. This is in the discussion section of my ⁓ piece that I wrote and that I've published as a pre print, which means it's not ⁓ hasn't been reviewed. It was actually rejected ⁓ by the publisher and that it was gonna be in a in a book about technology and surfing. ⁓ and I I don't know why they rejected it, but I I assume that it's because it was ⁓ on the wrong side of the today. I mean, I don't blame you, you know. ⁓ so ⁓ the yeah the scandal is ⁓ I mean this is a scandal like across the board with academia. ⁓ you haven't got a career in sci in the sciences ⁓ if you ⁓ go against the environmental ⁓ agenda. You know, it's it's as simple as that. And it's true. ⁓ Peter Reed has a channel and he's the guy that was ⁓ sacked by ⁓ James Cook University for going against the the belief that the Great Barriff was in peril. And ⁓ they sacked him and ⁓ I think he won his court case against them. But he ⁓ he's ⁓ spending a lot of time on his channel exposing ⁓ how a lot of ⁓ scientific research is ⁓ is ideologically driven and it's ⁓ It's overwhelmingly idi ideologically driven because the the publishers will sign off on anything that that pushes the the narrative. ⁓ and so I I feel as though I've I I've detected this ⁓ in in a number of places. ⁓ I think I ⁓ described the ⁓ the example of a report ⁓ by this is a government funded report by ⁓ McPhee and Belount. ⁓ And it I think it was twenty twenty two, ⁓ on the ⁓ report on the ⁓ efficacy of the shark mitigation program. And ⁓ this seventy page report, which I doubt many people could be bothered reading, you know. Even the minister who's responsible probably didn't read it thoroughly. And so w when you have s ⁓ six times mentioning that there's a hundred percent success rate for drones and and ⁓ smart drum loans and ⁓ when they were deployed and then way down the back of the report it says that we can't really draw any conclusions because the number of shark attacks is because shark attacks are so rare and random. So you can't draw the conclusions that he was actually drawing. But I mean a a minister or or somebody in in the minister's office who's given the responsibility of actually reading a thing. They're gonna see a hundred percent success rate and they'll just draw that conclusion, which is wrong. So I mean, I don't know where where these people can get it how these people can get it. But mean they get away with it. And I think that they th realise they can get away with it because nobody's gonna read the thing. The other one was if you
speaker-0: Ooh, ⁓ sorry, it had a little buffer there.
speaker-1: I was just gonna say that another one was ⁓ this is a common claim that we can't ⁓ We can't ⁓ that the technology cannot provide one hundred percent protection. Now this is an interesting one because what you hear when you hear that is that it's pretty close to a hundred percent but not successful, not a hundred percent successful. The thing is that it's actually closer to zero than a hundred percent. Okay. It's but but when you when they say that they can't provide a one hundred percent protection, the natural ⁓ response to that is is ⁓ understanding of that statement is that it's pretty close. But it's it's not pretty close. They they're not lying, 'cause technically this the the th it's a true statement that they can't provide a hundred percent. Ten ten percent is also not a hundred percent. You get it? So this is the manipulative way that they ⁓ influence policy policymakers and the community. You know. So they th th they're promoting ⁓ programs that ⁓ that that sound good but they're not.
speaker-0: What do you think like success would look like? Like what what amount of shark attacks per year, what measures have been put in place, what amount of shark fatalities per year? Because you saw you mentioned before that you're not in favor of culling, but you're in favor of, you know, if a shark gets in the net and it gets killed that way. But you're also saying that not many of the three dominant sharks that we're worried about get caught in the nets anyway. So how are we going to reduce that population enough? To help out those stats when they're only getting caught in the net.
speaker-1: It's not a reduction in population. That's not what I'm looking for. It but it hinges on this theory that the shark is deterred by the side of a dead shark. So for every
speaker-0: Dead shark has to come from a reduction in species, doesn't it?
speaker-1: Yeah, but marginal. Yeah. So I mean okay, imagine this
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah, but I'm saying. ⁓
speaker-1: Ten percent of population gets caught in the net and dies. ⁓ say the rest avoid I mean, hopefully the rest, but ninety percent of the rest avoid the area because they've seen ten percent of the population dead in in a shark net. Okay. That's preferable to killing ninety per cent of the population. But y so you're gonna have to reduce the population by at least half. I mean, I don't even know how much you'd have to reduce the population by because I mean you could you know this is another side to it which is kinda hard to get your head around. ⁓ because there are so few shark attacks, it might only be a few sharks. I mean, obviously it's a few sharks, because there's only a few shark attacks. I mean, ⁓ some of these shark attacks might be the same shark. In any case. this is ⁓ a point that a shark scientist, French shark scientist Eric Klur makes, 'cause he ⁓ has suggested that we ⁓ take a sample of the shark's DNA. And when a shark gets hooked on a smart drum line, you take ⁓ you check the DNA and if it turns out to be the shark that attacked someone previously, then it can be ⁓ killed. dispatched. ⁓ so ⁓ anyway he he the point that he's making is that all species, any any species, ⁓ ants, dogs, bears, humans, we have a personality that ranges that ranges from ⁓ shy to bold, and that it's only the most bold sharks that are attacking people. Not a lot of people ⁓ in the shark community agree with him, but it's an interesting ⁓ proposal. ⁓ I mean it's plausible, you know, there that it's only a a a an aggressive personality that wants to bite someone. But you would imagine that there could be situations where any shark, no matter how shy it is, will be startled and attack, bite someone because it was startled. So I mean, there are obviously scenarios where you can imagine that it ⁓ it doesn't apply. But ⁓ This is ⁓ the problem with reducing the the population of sharks, say, by fifty percent, you may not get that shark. You know what I mean? And so the reduction in the population, you'd have to be closer to eighty percent reduction in the population of sharks to ensure that you get those few bold sharks. So I I that's why we can't think that's why we've got to avoid ⁓ I mean, for the sake of the ecosystem, we can't cull enough. We're not gonna be able to cull enough. So so the number that you'd have to cull would have to be so great. y you know, if you're trying to protect people from shark attack, it's gonna have to be so great that it's gonna ⁓ compromise the ecosystem. And that's why we're never gonna go that way. The shark scientists will never let the government do that. And you know, science I mean, I don't know whether it's true, you know, that ⁓ the ecosystem's gonna collapse. I wish it wasn't, you know. I mean there there are reasons to think that ⁓ nature is more resilient than that. But ⁓ I'm not even gonna go there because, you know, the the scientists have you know, ⁓ settle that as far as I'm concerned. There's no way that the government's gonna listen to ⁓ other points of view. So that's why I'm keen on the ⁓ the nets, because theoretically a small minority of sharks will deter a a a a large majority of other sharks from entering the area.
speaker-0: Yeah, and then that's just sharks alone. So you're saying by adjusting the shape the distance ⁓ that that'll also you hope ⁓ limit the amount of bike hatch, which is a a terrible part of the
speaker-1: Yeah, the height. And so, you know, I I I would like to see them only two meters high. That will seriously reduce the number of air breathing mammals getting caught in it. But we have to compensate ⁓ you know, by having more shark nets. So try to maintain the same surface area or or increase the surface area the the the total surface area of netting. ⁓ I mean I I I'm Would seriously thinking that we just need a lot of very short nets because you see sharks ⁓ travel in different levels, ⁓ whereas air breathing creatures obviously travel mainly in the upper part of the ⁓ water column, but sharks travel along the bottom as well, and so theoretically it's just a matter of making sure that you kill. a number in the a certain number of sharks ⁓ in the net and ⁓ it doesn't matter if they're on the bottom. Theoretically sharks will discover those ⁓ those carcasses just as regularly as anywhere else in the net and be deterred from the the whole area. I mean actually I I don't know if it's true, but it's just just a theory.
speaker-0: If if you had full control over shark policy in Australia, what would you implement now, tomorrow, and and why? Like I know you've spoken about the stations and the nets. What else you've got control, Dan?
speaker-1: Just stop the ⁓ smart drum lines. Just stop ⁓ altogether. It's just a complete waste of money. I love the drone technology for contests. when kids are playing between the flags, certain locations. ⁓ rotate the nets. Huge number of nets. ⁓ only two to three metres off the seabed. ⁓ and the outer reefs. Somehow get the outer reefs happening. I mean it's gonna take decades to to to build a a a chain of reefs. But ⁓ I mean, you know, there may be other benefits to the the reefs. Maybe it's gonna, you know, be good for fisheries. ⁓ there may be other benefits. But I think it's a a bit you know, it's a it's decades in the making to solve this problem.
speaker-0: What do you think we're missing out on and what do you think the cost of not being able to have these sorts of chats, as you mentioned before, that when you throw a theory that's a little bit benign and and left field that you get eaten alive, what do you think's the consequence of having that mentality?
speaker-1: ⁓ very few people have the courage to speak up. You know, that applies to all you know, politics in general. And it's very sad that ⁓ That ⁓ Yeah, it's it's a shame that we can't communicate and ⁓ Oddly enough I ⁓ It's it was very rare that I got someone that actually engaged with me. I mean I if I said it was one percent, you know, it was ridiculous to actually engage in the conversation. ⁓ But I mean, what does it matter online? Because I I don't think I achieved anything there. You know, I mean we managed to get five hundred signatures for the petition. ⁓ I don't know if I you see, I've been told by a a certain journalist that You don't get anywhere reasoning with people. It there's gotta be an emotional ⁓ attachment to the the the issue. And ⁓ of course that's why ⁓ the Humane Society produces these videos of creatures, you know, whales, etc., getting caught in in a shark net and you've got the violins and you know, it it it it's a very emotional experience for people. And so they get their opinion and it's totally ingrained in them. And there's just no way to get people to think rationally. And as I said before, it's it's got a lot to do with id identifying with a side. ⁓ and I think that people are generally very lazy. I mean, ⁓ it's taken a fair bit of discipline on my part to get to the bottom of this ⁓ subject matter. ⁓ People don't have the time, let alone the inclination. You know what I mean? It's just ⁓ it's it's not easy. and what I've learnt in in this whole process is ⁓ that I've ⁓ I've had to really be careful not to be ⁓ one sided, you know, to try to to see from both points of view. And ⁓ I mean I've certainly got my criticisms of ⁓ people some people who have criticized me. ⁓ they take it terribly personally, you know, like I'm gonna kill their children or something. It's just nutty. But ⁓ I think it's terribly frustrating, it has been terribly frustrating for me that ⁓ the ⁓ the people who know the tr who know the data, they won't engage with me. I mean, they've had plenty of opportunities. I emailed them, you know, I've I've published this p ⁓ this pre print online on ResearchGate. I know through ResearchGate ⁓ that many of the shark scientists that I criticize in the paper have read the paper because it notifies me when they download it. So but they won't engage with me. I mean why do you think that they don't engage with me?
speaker-0: Why do I think?
speaker-1: Yeah, it's it's an interesting issue, isn't it?
speaker-0: ⁓ mate, I'm probably yeah, I think it is an interesting issue. I think it's missing from society a lot these days and I think that there's a lot of fear around being spoken out because the con consequences are instant and harsh. And so if anyone makes a mistake ⁓ I'm I'm just speaking about a mistake. ⁓ what really irks me about what happens in the world at the moment is someone in a higher position makes one mistake and then they have to resign or they have to move out of that role from one mistake. And as humans Well, as young humans with my daughter, I'm teaching her to make mistakes and that's how she learns. But I feel like we've come to a point now where if we make a mistake, we're we're out, you know. And so I don't know the contents or the or the context around why that person that you have mentioned in your article isn't engaging with you. But I do think that we miss out on a lot if we don't hear from all sides. And, you know, as you mentioned that the whale in the net is a extremely emotional thing for someone to see. But so is watching someone get attacked by a shark or watching your community suffer anxiety around going to the beach. And that's an emotional thing as well. So if we can if everyone can see that both sides are coming from an emotional point of view. And what we might not understand about their situation, they might not also understand about ours, that's a really good place to start. the conversation. And I think we need more than that. And I hope that this podcast can bring these points of view forward. ⁓ that's one long winded answer.
speaker-1: Well I mean I'm genu I'm genuinely interested in other people's points of view and I've actually benefited from listening to try to work out what is it that ⁓ people you know people are struggling with. ⁓ and that's ⁓ so I I I mean even the trolls who who have, you know, torn me to shreds online. ⁓ As offensive as it is, you ⁓ well I in a sense it it inspires me more so ⁓ to dig deeper. But also there's always gonna be a point somewhere in what somebody's saying, ⁓ which is worth listening to. ⁓ and so I've refined my opinions. Like initially I was ⁓ I mean, God, initially I was all for exterminating sharks, you know. But I mean that was an emotional response. ⁓ since ⁓ studying more I've learnt that ⁓ that the ⁓ ecosystem ⁓ depends on apex predators and ⁓ although there are arguments against ⁓ against ⁓ nature being that fragile, ⁓ I've come to the conclusion that as I've said, there's no point in fighting against that opinion, so I'll leave it. ⁓ so ⁓ Yeah, ⁓ my ⁓ opinions have evolved through ⁓ engaging with the topic. ⁓ it's terribly disappointing. I mean, for example, ⁓ my criticism of smart drum lines is supported by s ⁓ some research done ⁓ quite recently. research into what's called e DNA, ⁓ environmental DNA. So apparently you can sample I was really skeptical about this when I first heard about it, but I read the paper and it's it it seems really ⁓ plausible that the amount of ⁓ shark DNA in in in a sample of water just taken from ⁓ the beach can actually show the number of sharks in the area. I mean that sounds bizarre, doesn't it? Yeah. I highly recommend you reading it because it's a totally convincing argument. And so this study that was done on ⁓ on this coastline, ⁓ Evans and Ballinet. ⁓ more or less confirmed or in sorry, more or less, literally confirmed what my finding was that there are many more sharks in the area than are being relocated or or detected by the shark listening stations. So I wrote to the author, who works for DPI, and said, Doesn't that finding support my ⁓ the conclusions of my case study? No reply. You know, it's just like, are we in this? You know, but you see, we're not in it together. They're not trying to find a solution. They're they're more concerned about their careers. You know. Otherwise they they would be implementing some of these ideas. Certainly they wouldn't be wasting money on smart drum lines. Okay. I mean maybe it doesn't matter that we waste money on smart drum lines. I don't know. Maybe it's cool that that we spend ten million dollars on smart drum lines. ⁓ but obviously there's a limit ⁓ to how much you want to ⁓ invest in something that's of neg negligible value.
speaker-0: Please send that study through. I'd be very interested in reading it. And I don't yeah, I don't know where I currently sit with drum rine drum lines, because like you said, through engaging, you've been able to change some of your opinions. And you know, for the better or not, that's that's up to I guess you'll never know, really. But it's that engagement that allows us to sway, think differently, and then change on things that we might have had a hard stance on. And right now. I feel like drum lines, although having a baited hook five hundred meters off the beach seems ridiculous when you put it like that, but that's where we're getting our data on sharks. And although the data is unclear, the numbers are unclear, we are learning more. And over the over the last ten years, we've learnt a heck of a lot more than we had before that. And it's a lot of it's because we can tag them by hooking them on that drumline. And I think that that knowledge might eventually lead somewhere. Right now it feels murky because it feels like one, the data is unclear and the way it's being communicated to us is also a little bit unclear. And so that's funny. But we need that data, I feel like, to get to a certain point and to educate those people who may be harder to sway. Yeah, I agree.
speaker-1: So they they they don't want that shark attacking somebody
speaker-0: Yeah. I mean I feel I feel like that's a catch to that procedure. It's like I think that's probably a good thing because if that we need that data and if that tagged shark. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, and that so what I'm saying is I I agree with the relocation almost in this instance right now without looking into it more is because yeah, if that that does get tagged then it moves into shore and bites somebody, then they're gonna have a lot to answer to and then that's gonna throw I think we might not move forward.
speaker-1: With the data, yeah. One of things that we're learning about the ⁓ from the ⁓ tagged ⁓ from the data ⁓ that that shows shark movements is the correlation between environmental conditions. ⁓ so if you have a a lot of sharks in an area indicated by the number of sharks being tagged, and you can see a correlation with certain environmental conditions like water temperature, then you could keep an eye on water temperature. there's a an indication of risk. But I'm sceptical about that as much as it's ⁓ see I c I can see how it would be useful because then you could say, okay, now the government has to focus on this stretch of coast. Okay. But not to tell surfers that now is a high risk time because it's never gonna be that much of a risk. Because the
speaker-0: I like that rating system because again it comes back Well maybe mate, maybe you might just listen to maybe it's just like it's not saying okay it's high risk, I'm not going in. Some people may, but that's their decision.
speaker-1: Do you change your behavior? Well well yeah, some people okay, so the way I I I phrase it is that you're gonna have somebody who's got ⁓ two kids in the in in school and ⁓ and he's got his wife and he's got ⁓ what is it, the the the mortgage. He can't risk there's too many people depending on him, okay, to risk a shark attack. And so the risk when it gets down to one in a hundred thousand, maybe that's ⁓ not acceptable for him. Right. But There's always gonna be this is a point that I keep making, there's always gonna be half a dozen people who paddle out. And it you only have to have half a dozen people for someone to be attacked. Because it doesn't matter to a shark whether there's fifty people in the surf or five people in the surf. It's gonna be a shark attack. So if you shoot the other forty five who don't go out, you know, you're protecting them, but you're not actually reducing the rate of shark attacks. 'Cause somebody will still be attacked.
speaker-0: Let's not word it as like a should say that's a high alert. Let's just say that the study has been done that upwelling increases the amount of great whites that come closer to shore. And so if there's a ⁓ higher number of great whites that are closer to shore, you are then more likely to have an interaction. So that study has found that. So you're just educating that person that that water is closer in today. So old mate with the mortgage and the family and people relying on him, he might go down after that. After his day's work to keep his sanity and go for a surf, but he might look and there might be no one out. He might see some birds diving out the back. He might go, hang on. Okay. It's an upwelling day here. He might, but was it's taking our responsibility into our education. It's like being on the road. So I've had two beers. I'm feeling really tired. ⁓ this stretch of road's a bit dangerous. ⁓ there's been a few incidents here lately. I might just stay at a mate's house. It's just like taking these little things. Okay.
speaker-1: Right.
speaker-0: May change the situation.
speaker-1: I humbly disagree with you. And my reasoning is simply that you're gonna always have because I mean I was a part of this, right? You're always gonna have someone paddling out. And as soon as you have a couple of people out, then you're gonna have more people paddling out because they figure, and this is young people, they figure that it's safe. Now, how can you how can you protect those that second wave of people? I can understand if you want to blame those first people. who know that it's dangerous, but we can't police people that much.
speaker-0: I'm not I'm not going off the argument to say that the next group won't paddle out. I'm just saying what what's lost if we don't educate that one guy? I like beyond I'm not it's it's not like don't because the other guys are gonna paddle out then don't tell the first guy.
speaker-1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Educate everyone, that's fine, but don't expect there's going to reduce the rate of shark attacks. Don't expect that. Because there's always going to be enough people out there for a shark to attack. There's always going to be. You know, whenever whenever there I mean, we've only got some think of it this way. Imagine if we had a whole lot of artificial reefs that doubled the number of shark loc ⁓ sorry, surf breaks on the coast. That would effectively double the number of shark attacks. Same population of people. But distributed. So it's the distribution of shark sorry, it's the distribution of surf breaks that determines the rate of shark attacks, not the number of people in the water.
speaker-0: How are you where are you getting that data from?
speaker-1: That's logical.
speaker-0: Yeah, but like if you're saying that that's logical, to me, mine feels logical as well. So I'm saying where in terms of that ⁓ discrepancy there, where
speaker-1: What wait can can you tell me that again? I I didn't quite understand it.
speaker-0: So like in terms of you were saying that by people ⁓ altering their behaviours off education, you said we'll not lower the risk of them getting attacked by a shark.
speaker-1: Well, only because there's always going to be someone who takes the risk.
speaker-0: Well, yeah, but but what I'm saying is like why would that not but why would the why would yours ⁓ how do I explain this? You know what I'm saying? Like you're saying that your situation there, it goes off surf breaks and the distribution of sharks across there. But it's the people who are frequenting those surf breaks.
speaker-1: Well all I can say is okay, so w w where I'm coming from is a personal experience of the risk that people are prepared to take to have a wave. Okay. So long as there's a surf break And no one's out. Presumably no one's out because they've been warned not to go surfing. There's always going to be someone who paddles out if there are good waves. Not even good waves, just anything to take off on. If you can get a a drop and a and a few turns in, you know, there's a lot of desperate a lot of people this is the other side of it that I think I've said a few times now. It's so hard to get a wave when it's crowded that You're eager to get out there when there's no one out because you finally get an opportunity to to get a few waves. So I'm not against education, okay? I I I think that everybody needs to learn about this situation, hopefully all dimensions of it. ⁓ but the ⁓ the increased risk I mean get back to the the the the the the estimate that I came up with was one in ten thousand. ⁓ the figure for the worst spot in the worst shark ⁓ hot spot in the world, Reunion Island, was one in twenty eight thousand for every hour that you're out there. There's a one in twenty-eight thousand risk of attack. I mean, why wouldn't you why wouldn't you go for a surf with I mean, you can't fear ⁓ life that much. You know what I mean? Some people will fear life that much because they've got a lot of responsibility. But there's an awful lot of people who haven't got any responsibility. And there's also people, I mean, this is the interesting thing about VK feminist ⁓ Rebecca Olive, she said that she actually gets a bit of a thrill out of pedaling out knowing that she's a part of the food chain. That's a real thing. I saw people in in during our ⁓ shark crisis. There was a fella sitting off the end of the wall. I don't think there was even a peak there. He was out beyond. You know. The guy was clearly challenging himself. And we we all have these messed up problems with our minds, you know. And maybe and this is the point that Rebecca Olive was making. I don't know if she was aware of how far people would take it, but there are people who will go out there and and challenge themselves to the fear of ⁓ of being attacked. ⁓ you know, it's it's liberating in some weird way that you feel like ⁓ you're a part of nature and and ⁓ you know, come and get me, I'm sick of life. This is how I wanna go. You know what I mean? It it's just like that's one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is it's the people who ⁓ who ⁓ you know won't even surf in South Australia, you know. It's just like you know what I mean?
speaker-0: Yeah, no, for sure. It's a big spectrum. And I think depending on what you've been exposed to and where your mental state is is where you sit on that spectrum, it can fluctuate. And I love Rebecca's work. I've actually got her on the podcast, already recorded the podcast with her. So it went into a bit of that. And it would it would, you know, taking the wild out of it would really change the experience. So who knows if we even want that. But I think it's like when the It's not we want the wild out of it completely, which I think is it was great to get to that earlier because it's like what are we looking for as a as a rate of success? Would that be to take the wild out of it completely? No, it wouldn't. ⁓ but it's just when that risk starts to feel a lot more than it used to, and it becomes that risk that you're you're not comfortable ⁓ living with without sort of learning more or trying to change it or trying to work towards a better solution, if that makes sense. ⁓
speaker-1: Okay, well I I mean I sort of got
speaker-0: Anything we haven't touched on, mate, 'cause it's been a long chat, but is there anything that you feel is important to touch on before we before we move out?
speaker-1: It's an enormous topic. I ⁓ I think that ⁓ I I mean I'm glad that we've touched on the fact that I haven't had much satisfaction communicating with DPI. I think that's ⁓ that's really important that I get that message out. the government doesn't want to hear my point of view. You know, I mean they know it, but they don't want hear it, you know. I've ⁓ I've sent them everything that I've ever written. ⁓ I think it's very ⁓ very sad that ⁓ that creatures are valued more than humans. And ⁓ I think that I've got reasonable arguments against the way people justify it. I don't think it's justifiable. I I I value hum humans I mean there are people who who simply don't value humans, but I value humans so far beyond a whale getting caught in the net. It's there's there's no comparison. But there are people who genuinely think the whales are more valuable. I mean, look, the way you could look at it is the suffering. ⁓ I mean, you know, obviously there are some eco mad people who would say that, you know, dolphins and and whales suffer just as much as us, but I don't think so. We're we are suffering creatures and when somebody loses a loved one, it's it it's they're they're damaged for life, you know. This is something we're gonna take more seriously. And so I think that somehow people have to ⁓ get their conscience ⁓ back on track ⁓ and stop blaming individuals, stop using the suffering of individuals to ⁓ get some sort of sense of satisfaction that mankind is finally losing in the battle against nature. That's I think that's the over overarching ⁓ theme that I think I'm I'm might most concerned about. ⁓ I unfortunately that's kind of where the conversation has to go because the politicians are following the electorate. And the electorate has been effectively ⁓ indoctrinated ⁓ with the environmental message for since the mid seventies, you know. It's ⁓ it's fifty years of having environmentalism rammed down our throats. And as much as I consider myself generally an i environmentally concerned person, I ⁓ I think that it's going too far when we are losing people to shark attacks and there's an increasing rate of shark attacks. So I mean somewhere along the line, we'll turn the other way and I just want it to be sooner than later.
speaker-0: Thanks, Dan. appreciate your time, mate. That was yeah, really comprehensive chat that covered a lot of angles. ⁓ took took a couple of days to get there with two separate sessions. But ⁓ yeah, mate. Thanks for the work you do and all your research and putting theories out there, you know, and also just having the courage to speak about it and to admit that you often ⁓ change. Or adapt new thinking due to what you've read and engaged with and listened to. So ⁓ thanks a lot, mate. Any closing words?
speaker-1: Thank you, Brett, for ⁓ the opportunity. I think the key to ⁓ what you just said then is to actually ⁓ if you're seeking a solution rather than winning an argument, that's ab absolutely key. You've gotta want a solution. Then you listen to the other person's point of view. If you're just interested in beating someone like a troll tries to ridicule someone online, there's no listening going on, you know, it's not a conversation. So I would suggest that people ⁓ take that approach that you actually do focus on the objective, ⁓ which for me is to reduce the rate of shark attacks. and ⁓ so that's why I'm you know open my heart to other points of view. ⁓ and the good thing is is that you kind of ⁓ end up discovering options that you might not otherwise have considered. So that's that's the key is to actually want a solution, sincerely want a solution. And ⁓ and not to try to win the argument 'cause that's just that's just childish, really.
speaker-0: Thanks, Dan. All the best, mate. Appreciate it.
speaker-1: Thank you, Brett. See you mate.
speaker-0: Just want to throw a quick thank you to anyone who has tuned in so far, supported and shared the podcast, messaged feedback and shared stories of their own. That stuff is priceless and so appreciated. So thank you very much. And keep it coming. Send voice notes, send your experiences. What are you seeing at your local? How are your mates and community feeling? What guests would you like to hear from? This podcast was produced and engineered by Louis. Mulla Productions. Thanks for tuning in. Until next time, have a great week.
speaker-1: Food source is here, they're there. It's that simple. More and more be lost if bullhardy sapers jump into the open sea. Can you imagine trying to swim away from that to get it out? bottle because it looks about Surf life saving Just go to a local port.
speaker-0: It's never been like this.
speaker-1: I've said it before, if you've seen the beasts I've seen out there while I've been fishing, there's no way in the world you'd be out there surfing.
speaker-0: Hello everybody, welcome to Crossing the Tide Line podcast with Brett Bircher. This week's guest is Dan Weber. Dan's a journalist, surfer, longtime observer of the Shark Debate, and someone who spent years close to the reality of what happened around Ballinor and Byron during that intense run of incidents through 2014 and 2015. He's witnessed attacks firsthand, spent time around shaking communities, and over the years has become one of the more outspoken voices. In the conversation around shark management in Australia. Dan also started the Balliner Shark Reports page, which became a major source of information and discussion during a period where fear, uncertainty, and emotion were running high along the coastline. Through years of research, observation, and lived experience, he's developed strong views and is critical of a lot of the current thinking around sharks. From DPI policy to deterrence, his support of shark nets. To what he sees as an imbalance between environmental ideology and human safety. He puts forward a few theories of his own also within this episode. I really enjoyed and got a lot of value out of hearing from someone who's asking the difficult questions and refusing to reduce a deeply human issue into simple slogans. This chat was recorded on the 30th of April, 2026, at 2 pm. We have Dan Weber with us this afternoon. Welcome to crossing the tideline, mate. How you going?
speaker-1: Very well, thanks, Brett.
speaker-0: And where are you speaking from today, D?
speaker-1: Yeah, Bellinar. Bellinar, New South Wales.
speaker-0: Is that where you were born and bred or
speaker-1: actually from Sydney. ⁓ I've been here twenty five years. I was overseas for ten. ⁓ prior to that I was in Bondo. Actually Rose Bay, but Bondo was our local beach.
speaker-0: Now the Weber Brothers are a name you heard quite regularly in the surfing circles growing up. you're one of the one of the boys within that family. How was that growing up in that family? And yeah, tell us a bit about your childhood and then who you are and what you get up to.
speaker-1: ⁓ well that's a big story. I mean ⁓ I'm sixty one years old, so you know, as a a lifetime there. It's hard to condense it. But ⁓ we grew up in the Eastern suburbs ⁓ and ⁓ used to holiday at Angowri from mid seventies and ⁓ most of the family's living in the in that area now. I'm ⁓ Angary's about an hour and a half south of Ballinor. So I'm down there ⁓ fairly regularly. ⁓ ⁓ so I think the reason that you're wanting to talk to me and you can confirm this is that I ⁓ was in ⁓ in the water for a couple of shark attacks in East Ballina and ⁓ subsequently got involved in the debate. And ⁓ I've I've appeared in a number of documentaries and I attended ⁓ well I spoke at a Senate inquiry into shark mitigation measures. And I've written six or seven ⁓ articles for ⁓ flat white and have appeared in Beach Great, ⁓ one or two in ⁓ tracks on the topic. And ⁓ and I've also more recently written ⁓ an academic two academic pieces which have got a lot of coverage on ResearchGate. ⁓ and so in the last year, six months I've six months ago I ⁓ set up a what's called a a petition to extend shark nets north of Newcastle and south of Wollongong. And so I've spent the last sort of ⁓ well it was a two month period duration and ⁓ I spent a lot of time online fighting for the cause. And so I'm quite familiar with the ⁓ the arguments on both sides. And ⁓ so I think that that's probably why it's ⁓ it could be useful for you to to talk to me because I I ⁓ think I can argue the the other side just as well as anyone.
speaker-0: Can confirm that's exactly why I reached out, Dan. ⁓ I have paid attention to your work and I know that you have lived through a community that has felt the effects immediately over quite a long period of time. And I also know that you were in the water for some of those incidents and therefore have a, you know, personal story to share around that, which then thrusted you into a lot of this work. And that was a good while ago, you know, and you've been at this. Focusing on just the whole topic from a range of areas for that long. You know, and I don't think there's many people who would have commentary
speaker-1: I actually gave up a a couple of years ago because it ju just seems so futile because ⁓ we we don't get ⁓ much feedback or response from the government or the ⁓ Department of Primary Industries. I mean they ⁓ they pretend to to to talk to me, but it's ⁓ they're they're not very helpful. ⁓ and I ⁓ you know I'm critical of them. ⁓ but I ended up giv I gave up a couple of years ago and the only reason I got back into it was that ⁓ An academic in America asked me to contribute to a book and to write a chapter on the topic of shark mitigation measures. And ⁓ so I decided to ⁓ to take on that task. It was really quite difficult. I put a couple hundred hours into researching the topic, and so ⁓ the piece that I ended up ⁓ submitting as eighty plus research articles from ⁓ science journals. ⁓ hundred or more ⁓ citations altogether. So I'll give a bit of a history of well pretty thorough history actually of the ⁓ shark mitigation ⁓ technology over the years, over the century. And ⁓ it's got a lot of attention. I mean it rates really highly in the top one percent of ⁓ shark related articles on ResearchGate, which I think infuriates some of the academics. It's ⁓ it's just that I'm the only one who's publishing the other side of the story. And ⁓ this is part this is the interesting thing about this issue is ⁓ you know, so there's just not many people who ⁓ I I I don't know ⁓ why people are so afraid to speak up for ⁓ or speak against sharks. I suppose the the obvious question ⁓ answer to that is that people are afraid of being cancelled. And ⁓ you know, I can understand that I've I've cocked it pretty I've lost friends, you know, it's it's that's just part and parcel of the whole operation. But ⁓ you know, I believe strongly in in what I'm saying and I think that the the fact that these ⁓ that there are no academics on this side of the debate, established academics, I think that speaks volumes for what the problem is. They they c they can't afford to ⁓ well they can't even afford to be honest about the data. And I c I can go into explaining why I why that's the case. 'cause I've thoroughly investigated it, their careers depend on them towing the environmental line. And so whether ⁓ whatever your opinion on this topic, at the very least we can discuss the fact that they are not honest. And I can prove that quite clearly.
speaker-0: All right, can you hold that thought and we'll come back to that? 'Cause being a responsible podcast host, I better build the narrative here a little bit, mate. Keep let me let me do that. ⁓ but yeah, I wanna definitely come back that. I've got
speaker-1: Why don't we go over the ⁓ the shark crisis that we have? That's that's funny.
speaker-0: Well I just want you to take me back to two thousand and fifteen and tell me about how it felt to be in Balina in those times, you know, the effect that it had on the greater community and just what what it felt like with you being personally involved in those incidents and what actually happened. Just share that with us.
speaker-1: Okay, so over a two year period there were twelve shark attacks between Evans Head and Byron Bay. First one in ⁓ late late ⁓ twenty fourteen, ⁓ Paul Wilcox and Byron Bay. So that's a seventy kilometer stretch of coast. And ⁓ the first one in Ballinar was in February ⁓ twenty fifteen. That was also a fatality. ⁓ that was Tadashi. He ⁓ he lost both his legs. And so ⁓ it was at that point that ⁓ Balinar ⁓ started to fear ⁓ shark attacks. So I mean prior to that you know, it was ⁓ certainly an issue, but ⁓ you know, ⁓ two shark attacks in two fatal shark attacks in a matter of months got people nervous. And then ⁓ ⁓ in July there was Matt Lee was attacked, July twenty fifteen. And so it was after that I was in the water for that one, only about three hundred meters away. ⁓ it was after that one that I set up Ballon and Shark Reports, which was just using Facebook as a way of people to ⁓ reporting ⁓ whether they ⁓ that they saw a shark, ⁓ whereabouts. And so the idea here was simply that we could get the information out quickly. And ⁓ there was a of skepticism about whether that would work, but I I was confident that The ⁓ reports were ⁓ were valid. ⁓ there were a couple that were obviously not, you know, like I I it didn't take much effort to to verify whether the person was ⁓ trolling. Anyway, so over that ⁓ over a five-week period, ⁓ there were 35. So an average of one ⁓ shark sighting a day ⁓ between Ballinar and Linux Head, which is about 10, 12 kilometers. ⁓ It was amazing to to to do that. I I ⁓ I got a couple of people helping 'cause it was a it was pretty demanding staring at the screen for hours of the day to see 'cause the idea was to get the information onto the page as rapidly as possible. And so I could see ⁓ it was amazing because I could see within wow, within a minute or two people were sharing it. And so it was actually functioning in the way that I I had it intended. was a bit hard because there are a lot people wanting to to discuss sharks generally. And I was asking people, just try to leave this as ⁓ as a tool for us to to get the message out, but they were wanting to discuss stuff and people were upset with me s you know, and saying that I don't know what Facebook is about and they're saying, Well, you know, this is the best I can do. ⁓ you know, it it's a tool that I mean, since then, ⁓ you know, there's been a number of ⁓ proper apps developed for that purpose. ⁓ anyway, so ⁓ it was crazy because ⁓ it upset the ⁓ business community apparently. You know, I I don't know if that's true, but ⁓ it was probably a combination of the ⁓ Balinus Shark reports and ⁓ the fact that I was communicating with Fred Paul, who was ⁓ writing articles for the Australian. And ⁓ so the message was getting out pretty quickly whenever there was s an issue. ⁓ you know, any shark sightings. And so we had some good ⁓ articles. Anyway, so ⁓ the mayor rang me and asked me to take it down and I ⁓ I was kind of tired of it anyway 'cause it was exhausting. And there were no ⁓ organizations or businesses prepared to to help me out. And I envisaged sort of getting together a team of ⁓ work for the doll ⁓ fellows or or anyone interested in ⁓ in doing a few hours a day 'cause I wouldn't think you'd want do more than a couple of hours of staring at a screen, it's that hard to concentrate ⁓ for that long. Anyway, so ⁓ yeah, it was just a hot potato for everyone. Nobody wanted to step up to the plate. And I can kinda understand that. You know, it's ⁓ it's a it's a really contentious topic. ⁓ so anyway, ⁓ I I could see that I couldn't deliver the the service ⁓ in the long term. Certainly not the longer hours of of ⁓ daylight hours of summer. And so I deactivated it. ⁓ and ⁓ two months later, ⁓ which his name ⁓ Sam Morgan was attacked also at at ⁓ Lighthouse Beach. So ⁓ over that twenty month period that I was talking about, ⁓ there were twelve over the seventy kilometer stretch of coast between Evans and Byron. Ten eight of them were within ten kilometers of the river mouth and four of them were within one kilometer of the river mouth. ⁓ Yeah. So I was in the water for two of ⁓ Sam ⁓ sorry, ⁓ Matley and ⁓ Cooper Allen. So Cooper Allen happened right in front of me. It was ⁓ not more than about five four or five meters away. And ⁓ he ⁓ he just got some nasty gashes. The ⁓ the teeth went through his his thigh didn't actually chomp him, just slid through ⁓ his thigh and ⁓ so it was like ⁓ four or five parallel gashes. And so he's recovered ⁓ really well. Full recovery. ⁓ Matt Lee, ⁓ he he's not I I don't know if he's still surfing, but ⁓ he he he took the shark took a huge chunk, huge chunk out of his thigh. So it's ⁓ and apparently the ⁓ the surgeon said that his ⁓ his artery was visible in the bottom of the the wound. So he was, you know half a millimeter from death, you know. If it had severed that. It took an enormous chunk. It's like a chunk out ⁓ a bite out of an apple. It's it's just gruesome. There's a photo online. It's ⁓ I don't even like looking at it, it's hideous. So ⁓ so that was ⁓ the the period was extraordinary because ⁓ certainly the media arrived because it was a sensation that they could make use of. and ⁓ so there were like three or four media outfits in the area. They were actually driving around East Bell hoping to bump into Cooper Allen. ⁓ they were ringing me and pestering me to ⁓ to somehow get Cooper to speak on camera. He was reluctant. ⁓ anyway, so ⁓ it was a stressful period because I mean obviously everyone talked about it incessantly for a couple of years, but we had helicopters flying over constantly. Like I mean every And then every hour or two you'd hear another helicopter flying over and you'd think, My God, you know, is there another one? ⁓ sirens, as soon as you'd hear a siren, you'd ⁓ my god, who's next? That's how reg how frequent it was. There were obviously lots of bumps and and sightings. The the sea was alive. It was like a an aquarium. There were ⁓ we actually had whales in the surf with us, paddled next to a third a duck dived a ⁓ a four foot sat next to a thirty foot long whale. ⁓ There were birds everywhere. it was it was alive. There were stingrays and really lot lots and lots of ⁓ what are they called, ⁓ bait fish, bait balls. ⁓ big fish too, you know, proper sized fish ⁓ in schools, dolphins galore. It was it was a it was glorious, to be honest with you. It was it was amazing. ⁓ for the first couple of months there were only a few of us surfing. Which was amazing for me because I mean I've never surfed so much. Never got so many waves. So there's no competition. And the waves are good. Some people say the waves weren't weren't any good, but we were getting heaps of waves. And ⁓ by about with within six months the crowd started to creep back. ⁓ but over a period of about two years, I don't reckon there were more than about twenty guys surfing ⁓ North Wall. ⁓ and it was a great experience, you know, everyone keeping ⁓ keeping an eye on each other, you know, like it's if you ever saw anyone paddle out, you'd join them just because you didn't want them to be on their own. And ⁓ if anyone got out of the surf and you were the last one, ⁓ they'd wait for you to get out. So the camarader extraordinary, you know. It was it was a rare experience. the ⁓ The media was oddly enough, the online experience was probably more traumatic than the ex ⁓ actual experience of witnessing a shark attack. I mean The the hatred online, I think that's ⁓ what so confused me that people were so victim blaming, you know, really nasty attitude to people online. and so I think that that's probably what drew drew me into it. And so it's a bit of a paradox when you see ⁓ people attacking people online, ⁓ ridiculing them. For for me, as much as I find that insulting and and distressing. It actually drew me closer to the topic because I I really wanted to understand it. And so that was sort of the beginning of a journey for me to ⁓ to try to get to the bottom of ⁓ what I think is actually a ⁓ a part of the culture war. The broader culture war.
speaker-0: What does that do to your nervous system and mental state when you're hearing sirens, helicopters? You're also running a forum that looks at the sightings ⁓ and then you're seeing them yourself and you're an everyday surfer. Like how do you feel during those months and years?
speaker-1: ⁓ I'm pretty sure there was a bit of trauma. Bit of ⁓ I don't know if it was literally PTSD, but something in that you know, something like that. ⁓ certainly anxiety. ⁓ you ⁓ oddly enough, I mean, because I did ⁓ continue surfing, I d I hit on a a formula which is simply not to think about it. You simply cannot think about it. 'Cause the moment you start thinking about it, it's a downward spiral and you're gonna get out. You know, it's ⁓ I mean, ⁓ it's a strange thing that I don't think many people appreciate is that when when you're a keen surfer, it's very hard to watch waves going on ridden. It's it's a pure addiction, you know. Especially since most of the time that you you you know most surfs you have, you're you're competing for waves and the younger guys are running rings around me these days. So ⁓ the opportunity to to get the waves to myself was awesome. I I literally mean it. I've never had so many waves as I did back then. But I mean there were times it was it was scary, you know. We've had we had had a good six footer jump out of the water only two metres from us. ⁓ down at Evans there was a five footer that jumped out of the water four times and it was so funny because this guy, ⁓ obviously a local, ⁓ paddled out and he was so tough, you know, he had tats and he looked looked like he owned the joint. And it was very murky water, so we shouldn't have been out there. That's what they say. ⁓ but anyway, the shark bumped into him and he completely lost his composure. go from being the tough guy to wimp like and then I I started to paddle in and tried to get the next way, but I was so nervous that my my rail dug and I went underwater and ⁓ and there's just I mean it was only a five footer, but still you shit yourself. ⁓ but ⁓ there were lots of experiences like that. ⁓ But ⁓ like I say, the ⁓ the camaraderie was was amazing. It's like ⁓ keeping an eye on each other and and and getting so many waves together. I mean sometimes Northwall's like a skate park with all the crosswaves. Pure fun.
speaker-0: Now you said it was really beautiful to see such a wide array of wildlife. What made that year different? And is it like that now? Is it still so alive? Or why why two thousand fifteen?
speaker-1: Very unusual. So we get a lot of whale watches, as most places do, and ⁓ there was one occasion where there were I think it would have been at least ten whales within I'd say within a kilometre of the coast, definitely within a kilomet probably around five hundred meters out, along the stretch that you could see sort of from ⁓ you know, say say a two kilometer stretch. It was like a documentary, you know, nature documentary, just seeing these whales jumping out of the water. ⁓ It it was extraordinary. ⁓ I think it has something to do with upwelling. And upwelling. ⁓ so you know how you get the ⁓ the nor'easters that make the the water cold? Something to do with the Coriolis effect. ⁓ so the upwelling increases the ⁓ the nutrients in the water and so it's probably just ⁓ you know, a ⁓ confluence of different environmental factors. ⁓
speaker-0: And that's can you paint a picture of what upwelling is and what conditions that occurs on? It's generally a northeast wind.
speaker-1: Well, I believe that. I I I I don't know for sure. ⁓ the other thing that's interesting on on that score is ⁓ down the ⁓ east coast you've got these ⁓ so you've got the the East Australian current, I think it's called. and ⁓ there are these ⁓ vortices or eddies that ⁓ rotate ⁓ they're a couple of hundred kilometres across I I think. Thereabouts generally. ⁓ and and so when they come close to the coast and they're going ⁓ back up north, when the fl current is going back up north, apparently that brings water ⁓ up that that creates the situation where you get cooler water coming up. ⁓ so ⁓ I think I've exp explained that accurately. ⁓ so I would imagine that it would have been a whole bundle of things like that. ⁓ and But I don't know that anybody's come up with a with a a solid explanation. Which is surprising because you'd think that, you know, you would have ⁓ really investigated all of the data that you had available and because I mean there is data. And ⁓ well, all I can think is that ⁓ that I kind of owe it to the next town that's gonna experience this. Yeah.
speaker-0: Seems to occur like that. It seems like there's clusters that communities and towns go through and they have their their patch. And ⁓ Balinor certainly had theirs, South Australia's had theirs, Western Australia have had theirs, Port Macquarie, you could say has had theirs, and Sydney recently have had theirs as well. So it seems like it always finds a home for a couple of years that becomes the epicentre. But then it's also currently feeling like it's pretty active Everywhere although it although it might not be the epicenter, there is still activity occurring and people getting bumped and lots of sightings happening across the coast. But yeah, it is a it is an interesting question, the two thousand and fifteen run in Balmer. ⁓ I've asked quite a few members of the podcast what they put it down to and you know, everyone has their theories, but yeah, you can never say exactly why. ⁓ now going back to your alert system that you set up there on Facebook and it became quite popular and then got got politely asked to be put down due to the effects it's having on the community. Like what were your intentions around that? What were your intentions around alerting the community that there had been a sighting?
speaker-1: Well, I I I imagined that somebody could ⁓ get a ping on their phone, say they're down at Flat Rock or anyway, and then ⁓ run down to the beach and say, Hey, there's there's a shark, you know, like that's what happened when when ⁓ Matt Lee was attacked? I ⁓ we heard the siren, ⁓ the ⁓ the ambulance. And I remember looking up to the ⁓ to the the lookout and saw some people staring out to sea. ⁓ whale watchers probably. And ⁓ for some reason I got it in my head that there was nothing wrong because they would have known, which is kind of silly when you think about it. But it was like ten minutes later that ⁓ somebody paddled up to me and said, hey, there's something going on at the other end of the beach. And ⁓ at that point, you know, I realized what was going on and I said, come on, we've got to go in. I paddled like crazy to get in. ⁓ I'd actually seen this is worth mentioning at this moment because ⁓ I then realised that I'd only just seen, ten minutes or fifteen minutes before then, ⁓ a dolphin with its baby in the surf zone. And so I figured that that might have been its way of ⁓ hiding from from the shark. Anyway, a year later, I saw the same thing and I paddled in. I thought, just in case that is a an indication.
speaker-0: Yeah, seems like a really responsible thing to watch a dolphin's activity. We had Rasta on the podcast a few weeks ago and he was making mention of how he watches how the dolphins are interacting. And if they if they're playing as usual and then all of a sudden they split and go around the headland, he'll be like, Well, why why did that happen? And then but then he'll say if they're if they're babies and mothers and the whole family are just playing and they're all splashing around and catching waves, then he feels like they're not under threat. And so
speaker-1: Right, good point.
speaker-0: I I really have used that since in my life because dolphins became I used to have this ⁓ very neutral relationship with them, meaning that I just watched them for what they were doing in that moment without any extra thought until I had my encounter. And then I'd heard several reports that, you know, it doesn't mean that a pot of dolphins a pot of dolphins, excuse me, doesn't mean that there's no sharks. There could be a shark within that pot of dolphins and that really stuck with me afterwards. So I started to watch them really eagerly, like as in when I'd see them I'd feel uncomfortable. Not so much about the dolphins themselves, but what could potentially be within that pod. and then so Yeah, that's that's what was the Crowdy Bay. ⁓ yeah, it was at ⁓ Kylie's Beach, which is no more than as the crow flies fifty kilometres from here. Right. And that was another thing that solidified that, ⁓ shit, you can't you can't let your guard down in in their presence. ⁓ but I'd sort of missed the fact that I could watch them and make up my own mind going off knowledge that I'd heard with other stories like yourself just there and Rasta. So that's a really good point. If you see a dolphin and it's Junior in the in the zone that could potentially be hiding from something, then it's a good thought to have in your mind. So thanks for that. now going back to that when you said, you know, someone might see the ping at Flat Rock and run down and alert those surfers to come in. Now it feels like common knowledge for anyone who's paying somewhat of attention that sharks are always there. And so I find it conflicting between knowing they're there and then changing your behaviour, going off something that you already know is there, but then someone tells you it's there, if that makes sense. So you know what do you think about that now? Like w when you in in years in advance from when you started that page, like knowing how many there are, could could alerting people go too far?
speaker-1: That's true. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, no question. ⁓ I don't think we need to know, to be honest. But if someone sees a shark, then I think I mean that's that's close enough to worry about it. Mm-hmm. ⁓ but the ⁓ what do they call the the listening stations, they're half a kilometer out. So ⁓ it's really debatable whether you need to know that. That there's a shark half a kilometer out, 'cause it could be a kilometer out. 'Cause they ⁓ they detect ⁓ tag sharks up to five hundred meters away. ⁓ and of course they they happen in In most days there's a there's a shark within a kilometre of a a surf break. Statistics show that. ⁓ so you know, do you want to get out of the water every time? It's crazy. Yeah.
speaker-0: Yeah, I feel for Sydney and that area because they're obviously living through a similar situation to what Balina lived through in two thousand fifteen. And the shark alarm's now going off with every sighting. Yeah. And that alarm just sends fear through anyone who's uneducated.
speaker-1: On other hand, you eventually get used to it and figure that it's a ⁓ a false alarm. And so there's that other side to it, which is that people will ignore the alarm.
speaker-0: Yeah, that that yeah, that's alert behaviour. I think just going like a snapshot in time of what they're going through right now is that it goes off and it's up to you to interpret what that alarm means. They obviously want you to get out of the water, but that shark could just be fifty to seventy metres out cruising north to south along the beach and had no interaction or no plan to interact with humans. And so it's it feels like there's a need to alert with the relevant information.
speaker-1: Well what I would yeah, ⁓ what I would suggest ⁓ is that the information goes to a ⁓ a drone operator who then monitors the vicinity. So as I said before, it's hard to concentrate for more than a couple of hours on a screen. ⁓ so you know, if you're a drone operator and you've just heard that there's a shark in the area, you'll be extra vigilant.
speaker-0: To make it useful. What's thoughts on these automated drones ⁓ that are gonna go up? Okay, they're about to they're about to or they already have implement one at Create where it's Yeah, exactly. So there's someone on a screen but they're not operating the drone, they're working from home or they're in an office.
speaker-1: Artificial intelligence, is it? There is a person monitoring it.
speaker-0: Well there'd be a person monitoring the footage, I believe. Yeah. So the drone would go up, flies itself, can return itself to the battery to power up, goes back out again, and essentially it uses that AI or the person on the computer analyzing ⁓ to then use an alert system. So I think that's about to come out, which would be really cool. It's made me thought a lot think a lot about, you know, the what that drone does. And how it operates physically itself can be an alert system to that human in the water if they have that education. Like it's say if it's just seventy meters out and hovering at a certain level following that shark, then that would potentially mean that it's okay currently. It's just watching its behavior to see if it acts any any way or if it's agitated. And then that so that's like you could watch that and almost understand what that shark could be doing. And then if that drone was then to move closer to the human, that would be like, all right. Probably time to go in, or there could even be a light system where it could be ⁓ like a traffic light almost like green just means that it's hovering watching. This shark doesn't seem to be interested right now. ⁓ orange could be look, we're seeing some unfamiliar behaviours where we're a little bit uncertain. So take precaution if you want. It's almost like leave it in the surfers' choice or the swimmers, and then red could be like, get the fuck out of there.
speaker-1: Sure.
speaker-0: ⁓ yeah, what's your thoughts on like do you feel like that could be a solution?
speaker-1: Not a solution, no, because for a c couple of reasons, ⁓ is y you can't see ⁓ a dark shape against a a dark reef. So you you need the contrast. Obviously there are some times ⁓ some places and times of day when sharks are very clear, but you only have the shark only has to be a couple of meters ⁓ below the surface for it to be a blurry shape that ⁓ somebody might not be able to discern. So no, I I don't have a lot of faith in it. But the biggest problem ⁓ if we need ⁓ people monitoring ⁓ a screen from dawn till dusk is the number of surf breaks. So ⁓ obviously if if ⁓ you know if a council wants to invest in you know protecting its local beaches, then that's a decision they can make. But the state government it's not gonna fork out enough to 'cause I mean honestly how many surf breaks are there in New South Wales. There's five hundred and fifty named breaks. That's not including random beach breaks. So there's over a thousand surf breaks. Every single one of them are exposed to shark attack. So I I can't see the government I mean there was a paper in twenty twenty four, ⁓ Pedden and Branda, ⁓ and they ⁓ were complaining, this sort of the ⁓ the thrust of the argument w that so much money was being spent on ⁓ shark mitigation. ⁓ twenty million at I think twenty one point four million per year. ⁓ when ⁓ only a few people ⁓ are attacked per year. ⁓ only a few fatalities ⁓ per year. And ⁓ what is it, drownings is like a hundred and something per year. ⁓ and only a small fraction. I think it's like I don't know what the figure is, but it's a small fraction of the twenty million. ⁓ so they They figure that ⁓ too much money is being spent. But I mean, in all honesty, if if money's an issue, I think it'd be cheaper just to kill the sharks, if money is an issue. 'Cause I mean, the reason that they're spending so much money on ⁓ on ⁓ shark mitigation is not to protect humans, it's to protect the sharks from the other option, which is to kill them. Do you get the point?
speaker-0: Yeah, I get the point, mate. Let's move, let's move into that because this is somewhere where you said, you know, you've been researching a lot on the other side. And this is obviously moving to the other side now, in terms of the management of sharks or aka carving sharks. Now, I I've got a little quote here from something, I think it's a quote, or my little notes that I've taken. You said, charge with emotion. Activists insist that mankind is a real monster and that sharks are the actual victims, along with other innocent sea creatures caught in shark net. So you're basically saying that humans are not all, but this group are citing, you know, nature against mankind in a way. ⁓ Yeah, can you speak speak to that?
speaker-1: Okay, yeah, I think you that's a quote from an article that was ⁓ using a ⁓ an idea from a Russian ⁓ semiologist, semiotician I think. His name was ⁓ Mikhail Paktin and he ⁓ it's the carnivalesque inversion of hierarchies and so there's this rebellion against mankind, ⁓ thinking that we can control nature ⁓ to make life More comfortable for ourselves. ⁓ so the environmentalists ⁓ have inverted that. And ⁓ I feel that ⁓ we are victims of this ⁓ this attitude to this criticism of mankind. That ⁓ I mean I see it a lot online. There's ⁓ people saying that it's about time that nature got back at mankind. I think that while you There's an interesting point of view there that's there's some validity to it. It's I think it's a bit rough to impose it on individuals who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
speaker-0: So with shark management, are you pro management at the moment, given the situation in Australia?
speaker-1: ⁓ think the ⁓ the bull shark population should be reduced. ⁓ and I also think that ⁓ see the problem is that ⁓ there's no point in me saying what I actually think, which is that ⁓ grey whites should be called as well, because ⁓ there was a paper, science paper published just last year, that ⁓ gives a you know solid argument ⁓ in favor of continuing the protection of great whites. So they're saying that they're still in danger. They're so endangered in the fact that they're afraid that there's going to be inbreeding within the population. Now, it's a really solid ⁓ piece of research. And so if a politician or any, you know, policy maker in this ⁓ field that ⁓ reads that, they're they're never gonna I mean there's no point in this on our side arguing for the ⁓ for colouring great whites when you know we we live in a society that respects science as much as we do. Now I don't know whether it's true, but you know it's a solid piece of research. And so I'm not prepared to to go there. So I I mean I I ⁓ I think that one thing that I would like to achieve is ⁓ see I don't get feedback from DPI or any of the scientists. And I've criticized them on a number of ⁓ issues that Wh which is just simply ⁓ latent misrepresentation of data. Okay. Now, what the the the big problem, ⁓ the the big stumbling block, I think, is that they s many of them sincerely believe that the number of sharks is not the issue. Like this stems from the fact that you often see ⁓ sharks in close proximity to people. And so that ⁓ supports this idea that sharks aren't interested in people and so it wouldn't matter how many sharks are in the area, that's not what influences a shark to attack a person. Okay. The only problem is that ⁓ it seems ⁓ kinda obvious that the more sharks there are, the greater the likelihood of there being a shark that is going to attack somebody. And so that's why that's the rationale behind culling, obviously. ⁓ so this was ⁓ this the the the argument ⁓ that they used to support this ⁓ point of view, it was a piece of research done in nineteen published in nineteen ninety four ⁓ in Hawaii, where ⁓ seventeen years of ⁓ culling ⁓ data ⁓ hadn't affected the number of shark attacks. Okay, and so what the ⁓ what these scientists do this occurred in the ⁓ in the Senate inquiry into shark mitigation in twenty seventeen Two shark scientists, one ⁓ Professor Muick, I think her name first name's Jessica, and ⁓ shark biologist ⁓ Amanda Morgan. She th they both said that according to this study, ⁓ approximately five thousand sharks ⁓ had been killed ⁓ without any effect on the ⁓ rate of shark attacks. Okay, that sounds terrible, but the thing is that it's ⁓ it's technically true, but it's misrepresenting the ⁓ the data because ⁓ over a thousand of those sharks ⁓ hadn't even been born yet. They were in the in they were unborn sharks ⁓ in ⁓ pregnant females. So that brings the number down a fair bit. and many of the sharks, another couple of thousand, were non-target species that presented no danger to humans anyway. So the actual ⁓ number ⁓ ⁓ i the actual number of dangerous sharks I'm I'm trying to think what the number was. is ⁓ Let me see if I can find the number just so.
speaker-0: Get it right. Try and find it. That's good. It's funny, my mate actually mentioned this this morning. ⁓ I was chatting about yeah, everything and you know, we're coming up with topics and things for the project and he cited this study. ⁓ and then you've just gone and bought it and I'd never heard of it before. ⁓ 'cause to me it's ⁓ it's such an interesting one around that. Like anyone who's Pro management, I like to ask, you know, what at what point do you measure success with that? You know what I mean? Because if you go and start to manage a population and then things go okay for several years, but then there's an incident, how do you manage the validity and success of a management protocol if there's still fatalities occurring? ⁓ and so that that's where that was raised, which will which will be a question for you, I guess, after you find this data. Okay, so the
speaker-1: paper is Weatherby ⁓ Lowen Crow, nineteen ninety four. It's called A Review of Shark Control in Hawaii with recommendations for future research. Four thousand six hundred and sixty eight sharks were killed. one thousand eight hundred and nineteen were pups, unborn pups. So that brings the number down a lot. And ⁓ the figure ended up being two thousand and eighty eight Sharks of which only twenty percent were twenty two percent were tiger sharks. And so that is and It's about two hundred and two and two eighty eight. Okay, that's four hundred and sixty. So four hundred and sixty tiger sharks were killed over a seventeen year period. And we'll divide it by seventeen. That's twenty eight per year. Now ⁓ You also have to consider that Hawaii has twelve hundred kilometres of coastline. And so twenty eight sharks per year over that stretch is insignificant if you compare it to Queensland, which has ⁓ I think it's three hundred and thirty sharks per year ⁓ over a a three hundred kilometre stretch. So that's fifty times more sharks have been culled in Queensland. And so if they're gonna be saying that ⁓ see they they're citing ⁓ they're misquoting or they're they're misrepresenting ⁓ a study that doesn't really represent the rate ⁓ the ⁓ the argument that they're presenting, which is that culling doesn't reduce the rate of shark attacks. And so this is where this this graph up here is so interesting because that goes from From north to south, that block there, all the the dark ⁓ bars, that's ⁓ Great Whites. And ⁓ you can see that the the section here i is where the shark nets are. And north of ⁓ the graph is Queensland. ⁓ and so we and we know that there are many more shark attacks in northern New South Wales than than Queensland. So Of course, N Northern New South Wales also benefit slightly from the fact that so many sharks are are culled in Queensland because the sharks travel along the coast. But even so you can see that there's a a massive benefit in at least in terms of reducing the the population of sharks in the area. So Queensland and Metropolitan New South Wales, Southern Queensland and Re metropolitan New South Wales. have the shark nets and we can see from the number of sharks. This this graph is of ⁓ sharks caught on smart drum lines. And so the assumption is that the number of sharks caught on the smart drum lines is an indication of the number of sharks in the area, which is pretty straightforward. What they're doubting is that the number of sharks in an area ⁓ represents the the risk to humans. So that they they doubt that. And they cite this Hawaiian study as evidence. But the thing is it's pretty clear from that graph above my head that ⁓ the the shark nets are reducing the number of sharks in the area. And if you consider Queensland's ⁓ culling of sharks and the and the how rare it is to ⁓ I mean they they have shark attacks in southern Queensland, but they're pretty rare compared with northern New South Wales. And so this also relates to that ⁓ other piece that I wrote critic ⁓ sorry, it was a response to ⁓ The Honourable Emma Hurst, MLC, ⁓ on the issue of sharkness. That's the title. ⁓ and she misrepresented this ⁓ study ⁓ from twenty twenty four, I think, ⁓ by whoverneers ⁓ that out and and this included s ⁓ some of the authors, I think four of the authors were actually worked for DPI. And so they put together this ⁓ this paper, which ⁓ it was strange because See, I this is an interesting problem that we that I think we're faced with is trying to work out ⁓ what the truth is when the academics, the scientists, can't be published if they're saying something that rocks the boat. So you've got the the ⁓ environ you they they're expected to tow the line, their careers depend on it. It's it's you know, I mean, I don't know that I'd be any different. You know, if I'd spent twenty years or whatever. In a field, and of course she's surrounded by people who are environmentalists. ⁓ the strange thing is that in this paper, And ⁓ pretty good arguments are set forth which I th which clearly contradict the superficial interpretation of the paper. So it's almost as if Hoover Neus has decided that he's gotta at least give the environmentalists it's almost like clickbait, just some superficial interpretation that they can run with, and that is that shark nets don't work. But if you dig down into if you actually read the paper, and this is a strange thing, is that that I don't think these academics are even reading these papers. I mean, I I can't understand how you would ⁓ suggest, as this woman in did in Parliament, that ⁓ shark nets don't work. So the the the idea was that ⁓ because there was no difference between ⁓ neighbouring beaches, so shark netted beaches and non shark netted beaches in terms of the number of shark attacks, you're suggesting that shark nets don't work. Okay? But as you can see from the graph above my head, the y you mustn't compare the neighboring beaches. You compare neighboring regions where you have because I mean sharks travel along the coast. And so if you're gonna be r taking sharks out of one beach in the metropolitan area, it's it's all all also protecting neighboring beaches, probably for ten kilometers, because sharks are traveling along the coast. So ⁓ that was my criticism of it. And and that information was in the ouvenir's paper. But the thing is that it wasn't emphasized. And and there was plenty of room. This is what puzzles me about these academics is I'm wondering. I mean I think that I mean that there's another paper from ⁓ from this year, Riley, Madeline Riley, ⁓ Charlie Hoverneers and ⁓ what's his name Corey Corey Bradshaw. ⁓ and they also cite this Hawaiian study. misrepresenting the the data, claiming that ⁓ that the number of sharks in an area ⁓ is not an indication of risk. And you just think, well, surely they know that that that's not true. But they're perpetuating the the myth. And of course the ⁓ the environmental environmental movement just wants, you know, a headline and and I don't know, ⁓ it it does take an effort to to dig into the you know, to read a paper and to read it thoroughly enough to really understand what you're talking about. And, you know, like my education is linguistic, so I'm I'm familiar with some of the the strategies that I reckon they're using to to obfuscate, to to to you know. And when you think that the the people who are making the decisions, the policymakers, you know, my God, they're bombarded with information. They've got to read so much stuff. They just wanna get the the summary. We're not going to read 70 pages, you know, in a report. That's that's one of the criticisms that I had is of a report ⁓ a couple of years ago, authored by ⁓ Darren McPhee and Craig Blount. This is ⁓ the government funded report on the ⁓ state of shark mitigation measures measures in New South Wales. Seven times he said, they say, that ⁓ the ⁓ The smart drum lines and ⁓ and drones are a hundred percent effective. Seven times sorry, six times in a seventy page report. They s they explicitly say a hundred percent success. And which is kinda bizarre when you think, well, you know, so there was no shark attack when these ⁓ were operating, whether it's smart drum lines or w or or the drones. Then toward the end, this is like page seventy basically, ⁓ They admit that ⁓ they need more time to really evaluate ⁓ whether ⁓ the the technology is having an effect. Th there's just not enough data from shark attacks to know. And so it's they they completely contradicted themselves. But I mean who's gonna read a seventy page report that thoroughly? You know, it's nutty. So so I I don't know, they're they're they're ideologues, that's what I I reckon that that they ⁓ They use whatever, you know, rhetorical devices they can to to ⁓ to get people ⁓ to you know, to have shark policies that favour the environment at our expense.
speaker-0: Why do you think that nets are effective?
speaker-1: Only because of this graph above my head.
speaker-0: Mm. But what does the graph suggest in terms of nets?
speaker-1: Well, the the population of sharks is ⁓ the number of sharks near the coast is much greater where there are no nets. So the nets ⁓ in the metropolitan area obviously the you see this is a population of sharks that travel north and south along the entire coast, but they're skirting wide of the metropolitan area and they're coming closer to the coast ⁓ on the north coast. So that's that's what this graph is depicting.
speaker-0: Right. And so with a net, can you just alert I mean, I I know a fair bit about them. I think that they're they're not from the bottom of the ocean completely to the surface. And if a beach is netted, it's not netted completely. So therefore depthwise, it may only be half the depth at best, and then it might only run for a hundred or so metres where there could be a lot of open area there for a shark to come through. Why do you think with such a minimal amount of space netted would it have such a drastic effect on the shark's behaviour?
speaker-1: ⁓ we don't know.
speaker-0: Just you like yeah, your just your theory, mate. And I do like before how you said I don't have a theory. ⁓ yeah, I have one. Okay.
speaker-1: No, well I I mean I know the the the the arguments. ⁓ there was an interesting one that ⁓ was ⁓ Feller he ⁓ wrote an an article in ⁓ Beechpread a couple of months ago and he ⁓ drew attention to the fact that the sharks in South ⁓ South Africa, I think it was off Cape Town, ⁓ deserted the area after ⁓ gr ⁓ these ⁓ killer whales had ⁓ attacked a few of them. And ⁓ they were being washed up on the beach without their livers. Okay. Now he was suggesting that if the sharks ⁓ in South Africa were learning to avoid the area because there was a threat there, then his argument was that maybe that's why they're avoiding netted areas because they they see dead sharks. So when they encounter a dead shark in a net It must register as as danger to them. So that was his theory. I don't know whether it's true. And ⁓ in fact there's a paper from last year that suggested that it wasn't true. ⁓ actually ⁓ this year. And so it's very hard to know ⁓ what the truth is. I d I don't know. I I I I kinda like that idea that that they see a dead shark and if that's the case then we need to leave the the dead shark in the net, you know. Not
speaker-0: Is there many I actually I heard about that yeah, I've heard quite a bit about the orcas in South Oz, but then I've also heard that they were they were gone a couple of years before that and that people are just using that theory but they were already the numbers were low. So look
speaker-1: recently read it just said that ⁓ they were being fished out.
speaker-0: Yeah, a lot of things they were getting fished out. Some of the photographers that worked extensively there and boat operators were saying that there was a huge drop in numbers in the years leading up to those ⁓ orcas being there. So that was sort of like, How can you blame someone that wasn't even on the crime scene? ⁓ now how many sharks end up? How many, let's just say the three sharks, right? Bulls, tigers and whites, I guess, and bronzies. How many of those end up? in the nets for the sharks to learn that we don't want to be cut we don't want to get stuck in that net.
speaker-1: Yeah, that's a question. ⁓ very few sharks are getting caught in nets these days. Which ⁓ seems to indicate that they're that they're not doing anything. You know, not ⁓ not doing what we're expecting them to, which is catch sharks. ⁓ especially if they've got a if other sharks are then supposed to see. See if there are fewer sharks in the area, then obviously ⁓ fewer sharks are gonna get caught. So I don't know, maybe the the what happens is ⁓ when you have a lot of sharks they get a lot get caught. they sharks avoid the area. They get into a a pattern of avoiding the area. Then they slowly creep back. Then you have to have a an influx of many sharks for more to be caught, for them to discover that it's not safe. So I don't know. There must be you get what I'm getting at? I understand the point of view that if there are so few sharks getting caught in the nets, then maybe they're not performing ⁓ the the function that that we expect. And then it seems terrible that so many other species are gonna get caught. But my fear is that if you remove the shark nets ⁓ in twenty years the sharks will come back in and they ⁓ won't be deterred again. So I mean that's that's just conjecture. I have no idea if that's true.
speaker-0: Yeah, well it's an interesting thing to think about, well, if there's not many sharks being caught in them, then therefore the sharks aren't going to observe other sharks being caught in them, which sort of detracts from that argument. And then that they are not really occupying a huge amount of space, the shark could just go around it. If they're learning the behavior not to go into the net because there's sharks, then they could learn that behaviour to go around them. So I'm just curious as to why you feel you wanted to keep the shark nets in there and and put that petition going. ⁓ you must you must obviously have some backing behind your reasoning behind that. Other than I mean you're citing the graph above your head, which you're speaking about, you know, sharks numbers in metropolitan areas, but you know, to feel strongly about getting a petition going to leave them in, you must have some theories of your own.
speaker-1: ⁓ well actually ⁓ I ⁓ I really didn't expect if if I I I know that and have always felt that the government would never extend shark nets into northern New South Wales or South South I I just I I knew that was never gonna happen. What I wanted to know and unfortunately the government has has has not explained responded in the way that I'd hoped, I just wanted to push them because you see they've been ignoring me for a couple of years. Every time I write to them with some, you know, what I think are pertinent questions, I get this standard reply. I've got about six or seven replies from, you know, different ministers, 'cause they change ministers every couple of years. ⁓ and it's just a standard reply that says, We're doing this and we're doing that, and we're, you know, ⁓ we have a we want to protect humans as well as sharks, and you just think, well, you're not protecting humans. So, you know, stop pretending that you are. ⁓ Anyway, so ⁓ I just wanted an explanation. I wanted this I wanted an answer to this question of the ⁓ this belief that many shark scientists have, and it's not all of them, because I I've been in touch with one who says that he he he does believe that shark nets work. ⁓ the ⁓ this idea that the number of sharks in an area does not correlate with risk. I wanted an answer to that. And I thought that I could get it by doing the petition. ⁓ but I just got another standard reply that said we're doing you know, we've spent twenty two million, two point so many million on ⁓ these ⁓ innovative, you know, programs and you think, Well, you're telling me, for God's sake, these people know that I'm critical of it. They know my reasoning, you know. I've been talking to them about it for for years, you know.
speaker-0: Mm. So instead of being instead of doing it because you genuinely thought that it would im it would influence the safety of human life, you were more prodding as an experiment to get a action out of DPI.
speaker-1: Well we n well yeah, but I mean this is information that we need. We need to know whether there is an association correlation between the number of sharks and shark risk. See, this is a belief that the scientific many in the scientific community have, that it doesn't matter how many sharks there are, and so there's no need to cut. That's that's what they they say. I mean, it was in this recent paper by Riley, ⁓ Hoover Nears and and Bradshaw. It's it's like a it's a month ago. And they cite that Hawaiian study saying that ⁓ on the basis of this Hawaiian study, ⁓ there's no connection between ⁓ there's no benefit to culling. So th that's their argument that it's fallacious, completely.
speaker-0: Yeah, I hear I hear that. I guess would could releasing the nets also be a way to get the answer? 'Cause what other studies could be implemented do you think to get this data that you want them to bring forward?
speaker-1: Sorry, I don't understand.
speaker-0: Well, so you're saying like keeping them in you're unsure. Keeping the nets in currently, you're unsure about the effectiveness of keeping human life safe.
speaker-1: Well yeah, but I mean in the long term I think it would be really risky to ⁓ to remove the nets in Sydney. In the long term it's not gonna have any effect i in the short term. Like this is totally my opinion and and not everyone agrees with me on this. You know, and it's it it you know, ⁓ try I'm trying to be as ⁓ balanced as I can because I don't know that the nets are having that much effect in the short term. But if you remove them, then over twenty years there's gonna be ⁓ more ⁓ sharks surviving and exploring the metropolitan area. So I don't think ⁓ so long as we haven't got ⁓ an alternative and and we haven't I think we have to keep the nets.
speaker-0: So I guess yeah, so the Nets one of the roles that the Nets play, if I'm hearing right, would be to ⁓ also kill a shark that swum into it, which would then limit the numbers. So could could that just be done through culling? In your in your yeah, like management, commercial flight management.
speaker-1: Fishing you men. The the ⁓ the benefit okay, i it it depends on whether the ⁓ the sharks are deterred by the sight of a dead shark. So if that's how they work, then we then the nets are better than culling because fewer sharks will be killed than ⁓ than if you cull them. 'Cause I mean if you're culling the sharks to reduce the ⁓ the risk of attack, you're gonna have to reduce the the population by a lot. Like what, fifty percent? Eighty percent, you know, to make to get ⁓ that sort of ⁓ reduction in the rate of shark attacks. That's why I favor ⁓ shark nets, which is simply because fewer sharks would need to die in order to deter other sharks from entering the area.
speaker-0: Mm, I see. Hello listeners. Quick pause here for this episode's code word, which is forever. Back to the app. So what's yeah, what's going on there with that change in nets or
speaker-1: So this is a ⁓ a paper from 2022. It's Colfax and Butcher. Butcher actually works for DPI, so it's a bit curious that this suggestion has not been picked up. But the idea is to realign the nets perpendicular to the coast. And the reason for that is that sharks travel along the coast, they're migratory. Now, ⁓ one possible reason for I mean, they they don't say I I don't I don't communicate with them, they don't communicate with me, so I don't know what the reasoning is for not adopting that. Approach. But I suspect it's because whales also travel along the coast and they're afraid that there's going to be more whales caught in these nets if they're aligned perpendicular to the coast. If that's the case, then there's a good reason to reduce the height of the net so that there's more space for air-breathing mammals above the net.
speaker-0: Did you have much support with your petition to keep Nets in? Have you had much support?
speaker-1: No, God no. No I had so much hatred online it was extraordinary, you know, like I think most of the time I was just attacking ⁓ or or defending myself against ⁓ people who really sincerely believe that ⁓ nature is getting back at humanity. And my argument against that is that it's a bit much to expect ⁓ individuals to to pay for humanity. I mean, it's the whole community that's suffering, but these are actual individuals and the family members who have to suffer because in their in their eyes, ⁓ it's about time that the planet got back at humanity or man you know, mankind destroying the planet. So that was an argument that I I faced a lot. A real lot. ⁓ and so this is the strange thing about this topic is that there are so many different ways of approaching it. And ⁓ All I can say is that it depends on what you value, you know. And but on the other hand, I think that people who have decided the biggest blockage to this topic, I reckon, and probably politics altogether, is ⁓ that people identify with their side. And so long as you're identifying with ⁓ an ideology, then you're just not listening to the other side. Okay. And so I know that I'm ⁓ seriously outnumbered by people ⁓ by environmentalists. on this issue. ⁓ and so I'm being pushed to to be ⁓ to be pragmatic and to look at all possible alternatives. In the beginning, when I was, you know, probably traumatised by the whole shark crisis, I was adamant that, you know, the numbers ⁓ be reduced. But there's good scientific reasoning behind the ⁓ the fear of ⁓ a what's called a trophic cascade. And so ⁓ if there's a ⁓ the argument goes that if there's ⁓ no if you reduce the number of apex predators, then there's an increased number of ⁓ moderately sized fish and and then they overgraze the next level down. So it's a disruption to the ecosystem. And the argument that you often hear from environmentalists is that ⁓ you know then it'll impact humanity and so a few Deaths now is saving thousands in the future. Okay. Now, ⁓ whether that's true or not, I I don't know it, but I'm not prepared to to fight against it because it's it's very well argued in the scientific literature, you know. So I'm trying to ⁓ figure out how we can ⁓ reduce impact on ⁓ on the ecosystem. And probably the the best suggestion ⁓ is out of reefs. And this comes from another shark scientist, ⁓ Andre Afonso, who's the Brazilian ⁓ shark scientist who did a PhD on the tri ⁓ shark crisis in ⁓ Recife, Brazil. And ⁓ it was just a a paragraph to right at the end, it was kind of an afterthought ⁓ that outer reefs could attract sharks ⁓ away from the coast. And so this is ⁓ mimicking ⁓ that what's it called? ⁓ On land you can ⁓ it's called diversionary feeding. ⁓ and it's used in places like ⁓ Canada to attract deer and elk away from the highways. ⁓ so we wouldn't literally be feeding the sharks, but would be creating an environment where ⁓ you have a proliferation of sea life that presumably, hopefully, draws sharks ⁓ away from the coast ⁓ and therefore away from humans, but ⁓ I'm suggesting here that it's not just away from humans, but also away from the nets. And so what I'm advocating is ⁓ a kill zone that's within a kilometer of the coast, ⁓ reducing the number of air-breathing mammals by reducing the height of the the nets, aligning the the nets so that they definitely catch ⁓ creatures traveling along the coast. and hopefully the impact is going to be ⁓ not severe on the ecosystem because we've got these outer reefs that are creating ⁓ more ⁓ habitat for sea life. So I think that's sort of it in a nutshell.
speaker-0: So how do these outer reefs look? Can you explain them to me? How they would like cost, ⁓ size, what would be on them?
speaker-1: Afonso was referring to ⁓ these purpose ⁓ sunk ⁓ ships ⁓ and they're fair way off Recife. I think they're like ten kilometers out. ⁓ and I think they were ⁓ sunk for ⁓ maybe diving recreation. ⁓ I know that sort of thing happens. So I mean ⁓ it's obviously an enormously costly enterprise to have ⁓ a chain of reefs going for at least a thousand kilometers or two thousand kilometers if you want to do the whole New South Wales coast. But I would imagine that ⁓ over fifty years it it makes sense. ⁓ and this problem isn't going to go away.
speaker-0: Yeah, I remember we did chat on the phone, as I mentioned earlier, like a year or two ago, and you told me about that and I'd never heard of it before and I haven't heard of it since. Have you been putting this to anyone to see what sort of reception it has or have you heard it come up in Australian waters at all?
speaker-1: ⁓ yeah, I did actually ⁓ mention it to ⁓ a shark scientist at DPI and he said it was ⁓ risky or debatable whether it would ⁓ it could make the problem worse. So, you know, I don't know if that's true. He doesn't know if it's true.
speaker-0: Did he provide any reasoning why he thinks it might make it worse?
speaker-1: Okay, there's ⁓ it's this is ⁓ apparently a a recent understanding in the shark community that ⁓ in the shark science community that the ⁓ because most of the shark attacks are three point five meters in length thereabouts, ⁓ which is not a fully grown ⁓ white pointer, the biggest sharks ⁓ a fair way out in very deep water. And so the question is, why are these ⁓ medium-sized adults ⁓ on the coast? And the theory is that they're avoiding predation by the larger sharks. Okay. And so I suspect this is just pure conjecture on my part, I suspect that the ⁓ the reefs, he'd be afraid that the reefs would draw in the larger sharks and the ⁓ and more medium sized three point five meter sharks would ⁓ end up on the coast. So I mean it is tampering with the you know, nature, so it's hard to know what, you know, if there's any any unintended consequences. But ⁓ I mean the reason that I'm ⁓ exploring all these options is that I as I've already described, ⁓ I have no faith in ⁓ non lethal methods. And it's not because I enjoy ⁓ you know the the side of creatures getting caught in nets. I have done enough reading to know that ⁓ that they're ⁓ that these non lethal methods are inadequate, even in combination. Certainly if you're gonna have a contest, you might as well have ⁓ jet skis and and and drones, etcetera ⁓ do whatever you can for, you know, when during the summer when you've got kids ⁓ playing between the swimming between the flags. You know, there are certain situations where you you might as well ⁓ use all of these non lethal methods. But ⁓ if you want to actually reduce the rate of shark attacks, ⁓ the problem is that ⁓ surfers are distributed so widely along the coast and surf between dawn and dust. So there's just no way that I mean there's just no way that there's going to be enough funding. It's going to be a hundred million dollars a year, which is not going to happen. As I I mentioned to you before the ⁓ the Pedden and Brand paper from twenty twenty four complained that so much money was being spent on shark attacks when there are many more drownings. And far less money spent on ⁓ on life saving. So, ⁓ I I mean, you know, it'd be awesome if we could have ⁓ enough money to to protect every surf break with an AI ⁓ drone. That it sounds cool. But I mean you just gotta be really careful not to just think that it there's gonna be a technological solution. Because ⁓ you're not gonna be a no nothing, not AI or human. is going to be able to discern a a a a dark shape against a dark reef. ⁓ and as I said, a few meters down in the water is blurry, even from above, even on a good day. It's going to be blurry and and and but I mean, you know, the the turbulence in the water of any ⁓ surf break is ⁓ creating ⁓ turbid conditions often. I mean, obviously there are occasions when the when you get crystal clear ⁓ conditions. And ⁓ so, you know, you just gotta try not to imagine that that's what it's all like all the time because the vast majority of times that ⁓ that you're out in the water, ⁓ the conditions are not conducive to, you know, spotting a shark even from above. Which is just the reality. And so I've just gotta impress upon people that they've gotta try hard not to ⁓ have so much faith in in a technological solution because the the conditions are just not conducive to ⁓ detecting sharks. Okay, that so that's just drones. The other one is ⁓ the ⁓ the Smart Drone Line program, which I ⁓ I'm very critical of. ⁓ so I don't know if you want me to go into the details.
speaker-0: Please.
speaker-1: Okay, so I did a ⁓ a case study of the ⁓ coast from Ballinet to Lenox Head, so fifteen kilometers, and I found that for every shark tag shark that was detected, there were two tag sharks in the air at the same time. So if you take that as as a ⁓ an estimate of how many sharks ⁓ just those tag sharks, then that's a one third reduction in the risk. Okay. Thing is that not all sharks are tagged, and so there could be twice as many. Sharks, so instead of just two, there could be four. There could also be tag sharks passing through because the listing stations, there's only ⁓ four listing stations over ⁓ the 15 kilometers. And so it's not unreasonable to think that a shark, a tag shark, could also get through. So the point is that ⁓ 20% if there's ⁓ one in five sharks. being relocated, then that's a 20% reduction in risk. The thing that I also add is that you might as well reduce that by half because 50% of the sharks that are being relocated were probably leaving the area anyway. So statistically, ⁓ sharks are either coming and going. And so there's no benefit in relocating a shark that was already leaving the area. And so it's it's a 10% reduction in risk. And this program is terribly expensive and of course it it gives them data which they value because they can ⁓ track sharks. But ⁓ it's ⁓ it's not a ⁓ it's not much of a reduction. I mean The ⁓ government's response to this criticism is that a combination of measures will mount, you know, and and if everybody has a a shark shield on, then that's a sixty percent reduction. And so they think that this mounting ⁓ of all of the different ⁓ options, ⁓ you know, non lethal measures will end up saving a life. But each one of them, ⁓ there are negative aspects to each of these measures. I mean, if you want to talk about ⁓ Shark Shield, my experience of Shark Shield, I I used the Shark Shield brand and rappeller. I I spent two and a half years enjoying what seemed like a ⁓ freedom in the surf because I felt invincible. I was surfing more often, longer and in more perilous conditions. Because I felt invincible and I d I don't think that that would be unusual. When you see waves and you think that you ⁓ have the you know the benefit of the doubt because you've got a a shark shield, you're just gonna paddle out. You're gonna feel like you've you're safe. But the point is that ⁓ I was surfing so much more, Smith knows so much more exposed that this sixty percent reduction that they estimate in risk, ⁓ fell to zero because I was out there so much more. So this is actually called ⁓ damn, what's it called? ⁓ Peltzman effect. It it was ⁓ described in relation to ⁓ seat belts. There was fear that ⁓ seat belts would make people overconfident and drive ⁓ more dangerously. So there are lots of examples of it where ⁓ a technology is ⁓ feared because it makes people overconfident. That's exactly my experience. No, I mean what what I don't think the government is ever going to appreciate, and and and anyone who's on the other side, ⁓ I mean I'm hoping that environmental surfaces can understand what I'm saying. If you are watching waves going unridden and you know that the risk is marginal, you're gonna paddle out. I mean you you might do a few things to protect yourself, like You know, maybe you'll have ⁓ shark shield or maybe you'll put stripes on your board or or ⁓ whatever, you know. ⁓ I mean what most people do is they ⁓ just stick with people but stick with the crowd. But you're not gonna if you're a keen surfer, you're gonna paddle out. And I and and the only response that that I suppose people will get ⁓ will will will have to that attitude There's that ⁓ well it's your risk and you should suffer the consequences. But it's not just that person's risk, because sure enough there is a person who's gonna behave who's gonna take risks that they should accept as, you know, the consequences of. But as soon as you get half a dozen people out, then the tourist or the kid paddles out. So i is it their fault that they get attacked by a shark? So there's a human dimension that I think is missing when ⁓ people just want to blame the victim. Sure enough there are people who who take risks that that they ought not. But as soon as you get half a dozen people out there, even one, you know, you go and think, ⁓ well, you know, that halves my risk of attack.
speaker-0: ⁓ it's an interesting angle because when you just mentioned there when the kid paddles out, when there's already half a dozen and the kid paddles out in the end and happens to him, is it are we blaming him? I'm just trying to wrap my head around there's so many things there that you just spoke about, right? The sixty percent reduction, so you felt invincible. Yourself knowing a lot about sharks and studying them and being close to them in your community. It would s it seems ⁓ unusual that you trusted that number, knowing that, you know, these parts of technology were obviously tested in a way that is almost hard to give that number, I feel like in a wild environment, you know. So it's like that, it's like that, yeah, they can say that to you, but are you actually trusting it? It's almost like food, ⁓ food descriptions. It's like sure, you know, you can get a rough estimate of what's going on, but you also need to have the education and self-awareness to be like, I'm actually taking this decision to go in and I can't rely on something else to ⁓ sway me. ⁓ and so that's that part. So I'm trying I'm just trying to rack my brain here to get my point across is that, you know, what are we going for here? Are we going for there being absolutely no risk involved in paddling out into the water? Because if that kid paddles out and there's Half a dozen people. To me, he's an equal amount of risk to all those others, and he should then know that. And if he's wearing this technology that he feels keeps him a little bit safer, power to him or her. ⁓ but it feels like it's either eliminate all sharks or take humans out of the water for there not to for there not to be an encounter. ⁓
speaker-1: That's why I don't agree with culling. That's why I'm in favour of nets rather than culling. Because nets are not about culling. Nets are about trapping sharks. Sure they die, but it but in far fewer numbers than if you had ⁓ indiscriminate killing of of the whole population. Because I understand that the scientists will never agree to reducing the population because they you know, the politicians follow what the scientists believe. And and they sincerely believe and have argued very well in a paper. I'm not even gonna try to dispute that it even though we have anecdotal evidence that ⁓ there are more great whites, but they're saying that there that there aren't many great whites. That they're actually in in that the population is ⁓ is ⁓ at risk of inbreeding of all things, you know. So that's a it's a small population, then we're never gonna be a ⁓ able to convince the ⁓ the government to reduce the number of great whites. I mean they're technically ⁓ protected, but the scientific community is adamant about this. Okay, so I I I'm giving up on that. And the and unfortunately the the next option, because I just will not entertain non lethal methods. They just aren't up to scratch. Okay. ⁓ I'd love it if they were and as I said they they're suitable for certain situations. But it's not a solution for the whole surfing community. ⁓ so that's why I I I think that ⁓ shark nets, you know, altered in the way that I've suggested, without a reefs to draw sharks away from the the nets and people. You know, so I think there's ⁓ th this this combination ⁓ has potential. I I I I mean I I know that it's ⁓ gonna be crazy how much money has to be spent on these outer reefs, but I would imagine that it it can be done over decades. ⁓ and, you know, I I would say give up on the ⁓ smart drum lines. That's that's a waste of millions and millions of dollars. Give just give up on it. It's it's it's it's futile. As I just described, it's probably a ten percent reduction in risk. And that's in the area that they had deployed. They can only be deployed within sort of twenty kilometers of rivermouths. So there's half of the coastline isn't protected by them. So that brings the ten it brings up from ten percent down to five percent if half the coastline of of New South Wales isn't within twenty kilometers of ⁓ rivermouth. Because you need the boats to have timely access. ⁓ so I don't know. ⁓ I I mean I I totally understand people's concern. ⁓ I'm doing my best to to try to work out how we can ⁓ well not blame the kid for being attacked. I mean if if if that's what you're suggesting, he can't use a shark shield. Okay? The shark shield, because it's an electric jolt, hurts. It really hurts. The first time I got it I thought, My God, I'm not gonna get used to this. Like I thought it was ridiculous 'cause it's about a thousand dollar investment. But you get used to it, you know, because you just think, well, I I'll I'll persevere. I was getting a jolt probably three times a surf. Sometimes you you're duck diving. I remember there's one time I was duckdiving, ⁓ it was like the third wave in a set, and I was at that point where I had to hug my board and I got the biggest jolt. ⁓ I was at peak exertion. I mean, if I don't know, is that a a a danger to my Health, you know, which if you had a a weak heart, you're all of a sudden going, whack, it's a whack. So the funny thing is that you get used to it because you know that that's what's protecting you. If a shark comes close enough, it's that whack that's gonna deter the shark. But there's no way a kid is gonna use it. And you know, ⁓ the other thing to consider with ⁓ kids is that ⁓ there was a study done ⁓ where sharks were found to go for the smaller of two objects offered to it. And so if you've got a bunch of people you know in the surf ⁓ the kid's the most vulnerable. You know? So ⁓ and this is the thing that I think ties into what you were suggesting a moment ago with ⁓ the kid ⁓ joining that the the the crowd is that kids are ⁓ Teenagers are especially boys, are ⁓ predisposed to to risk taking, especially if they're encouraged not to. Now, there was this time ⁓ out at Northwall, ⁓ during the shark crisis, and of course everyone's, you know, conscious of the risk. There was a a choppy day, and you always feel like it's more risky when it's not, you know, a clean surf. ⁓ there were three of us, and I ⁓ three adults in this one Hit it, he must have been about 14. And ⁓ I know what the adults were doing. We were all ⁓ afraid. And ⁓ as a result, we were getting cleaned up by the odd set and getting dragged into the sandbar and sort of like pretending, ⁓ well, it's happened again. I just got but like you actually feel safer on the sandbar, you know, than hanging out in the deep water. And so we'd paddle back around and Anyway, this kid was hanging out for f further than all of us. And I came in ⁓ when it when the other guys came in, I I ended up deciding it was time. This is afternoon, you know, we this is after after sundown. And ⁓ I'm standing in waist deep water thinking, ⁓ god, is he gonna stay out there much longer? And 'cause I'm nervous, nervous way. And then I turned and saw on the ⁓ rock wall, which is sort of five metres above the surf, his mates and a girl. This is in the th chart thris, you know, this is right in the thick of it. And he was, you know, showing his bravado. He he was Doing what men do, young men do, you know, taking risks to show that he's cool. Okay, so I ⁓ I just think it's nutty to to to think that ⁓ kids aren't gonna do this. And it as as ⁓ as a community and and as someone ⁓ who's had the good fortune that I've had surfing for fifty years and especially through, you know, periods of very limited, almost non existent shark threat of shark attack, you know. Obviously it's my obligation to to try to ⁓ protect the younger generations. Was there
speaker-0: Nets in the water at Long Reef DY when Mercury was fatally attacked last year.
speaker-1: Look, I don't know for sure, but apparently.
speaker-0: Yeah, think there might have been. So this is where it's interesting and we'll move on from this in a moment, but right, so I hope I get this right. You know, there's you said technology creates a false sense of security. Yeah. But then in the paper in the papers I've read, you've also argued that the idea we can protect both humans and sharks is an illusion. Yeah. And so technology creates a false sense of security, like tick that, but then coexisting is an illusion. Yeah. And so where does that leave us? Because you're now saying the feeding station's out the back and the nets will take fatalities away.
speaker-1: Well, not completely. We'll reje I mean ⁓ this is the thing is that we're
speaker-0: No come. But isn't that sorry, just isn't that a false sense of security? 'Cause it's not going to take fatalities completely out. Right. So again, is it where does that false sense of security lie within your measures here?
speaker-1: ⁓ okay. So I don't mind the false sense of security so long as the risk is low. You know? ⁓ I mean, ⁓ Yeah, so ⁓ I mean ⁓ in a sense the full sense of security is great because at least then people are enjoying the ocean. Because I mean the risk is pretty pretty low. Okay, so over the ⁓ the period of the crisis, okay, that two year period, ⁓ when they're all those architects, ⁓ I was aware of how many people were surfing. Okay. I I I monitored it, okay, and I didn't write it down, but I was fully aware Of how many people were surfing and for how long. Okay. And so on that basis I was able to estimate that the risk was about one in ten thousand for every hour that you're in the water. Okay. Now if you're seeing waves pumping and there's no one out, Then one in ten thousand is totally doable. I mean, not for everyone, for sure. But if you're a dead set keen surfer and if you're young and you're and you're enthusiastic and you can't get many waves when it's crowded, you know, you're not gonna and and and this is another point that from the shark's point of view, it doesn't matter if there's five or fifty people out, you know. So long as there's a few people at each surf spot, you're not going to be reducing the rate of shark attacks by educating the people not to go surfing, because there's always going to be half a dozen people who paddle out in even perilous conditions. Because perilous conditions, and there was actually a study done in Reunion Island on their shark crisis. He worked out this is Leg Le Gabriel. He worked out that the risk was one in twenty four thousand at the worst spot on the island. So their their shark crisis was even worse than ours. ⁓ longer period and many more ⁓ fatalities. ⁓ and so one in twenty-four thousand, that's the worst, probably the worst in the world, ⁓ for any location during a s ⁓ any any shark hotspot. One in twenty four thousand ⁓ If you're seeing pumping barrels, you're not you're not gonna hold back. You know what I mean? But then the the altern you know, the the response to that is well, suck eggs if you get attacked. But I I I mean I just have to keep pushing back against that because it's our lifestyle. It's a it's a it's a glorious thing to do, and we can find a solution. But it is going to involve killing creatures.
speaker-0: It is gonna it is getting well.
speaker-1: There's just no way around it. There's going to be a lot of creatures dying. ⁓ you know, some people will, you know, characterise that as a holocaust, you know. But ⁓ compared with ⁓ commercial fishing, I think it's negligible.
speaker-0: Hm. So Okay, I'm just a bit confused 'cause earlier on you were saying you don't support you're currently not supporting lethal measures, is that right?
speaker-1: No, no, I don't agree with culling. So you don't I don't see shark nets as culling. So yeah, cull culling is to reduce the population. This is not designed to reduce the population. This is just to design to kill a few sharks to deter the ones that encounter a dead shark in a net. So it's a different concept. Now whether that's true, I don't know. That's that's a theory.
speaker-0: Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. Yeah. I I wasn't sure what we were talking about there. ⁓ now to go back to your s you were just speaking around the stats of shark attacks and you were saying perilous conditions. You know, when I think back to my incident and I'm sure some of the incidents you observed and certainly many members of Blight Club, and now that we're just speaking about the nets occurring at that beach at DY Longreef, Mercury Shalacus's fatality took place 10 o'clock in the morning on a sunny day with several people in the water. So these aren't perilous conditions that this is taking place in, ⁓ a lot of the time. Right. And I think that's where we've got to shift that mentality. And I also want to make note that suck eggs when someone gets attacked or blaming that person. That needs to shift. And I I don't I think majority of people feel that way. I think it's only the minute online who have no understanding. o of the whole situation throw that kind of shade o on the topic. ⁓ but yeah, so I think that whole risk and the perilous conditions needs to shift too because a lot of the incidents are going down on days that we've grown up and as people who live by the ocean think that it's safe. But it's actu that's when we've got to also shift the mentality because if we're prepared no matter what the conditions are like, then that may have a a likelihood of reducing that risk as well. And if we're incorporating some of these things. So now, yeah, what go back to bull sharks because it's it's an interesting topic around, you know, whites you're saying, not culling, but the nets, you know, if that happens to occur. But earlier in the conversation, we're going back a while now, you were saying that you're in favour of ⁓ you know, managing bull sharks, the numbers there. tell me why. Is there is there a is there a little Is there a least amount of ecological importance to a bull shark's life to a great white's, do you think?
speaker-1: No, I don't know. I don't know that. I ⁓ I've just read a few things, ⁓ not scientific but just opinions, that ⁓ that they are actually a disruption to the ecosystem. They're in such great numbers that they're over grazing on the next trophic level ⁓ in the ⁓ in the food chain. So ⁓ I'm afraid I mean I you see this is a What I think is the interesting story here isn't I mean, certainly it's interesting to come up with different ideas about how we're going to solve the problem, but the fascinating story here, if if you know, for for a journalist, is ⁓ this scandalous situation with academia. ⁓ the scientists not ⁓ not being able to openly ⁓ discuss this topic other than towing the environmental line. I I I I have gone through this. This is in the discussion section of my ⁓ piece that I wrote and that I've published as a pre print, which means it's not ⁓ hasn't been reviewed. It was actually rejected ⁓ by the publisher and that it was gonna be in a in a book about technology and surfing. ⁓ and I I don't know why they rejected it, but I I assume that it's because it was ⁓ on the wrong side of the today. I mean, I don't blame you, you know. ⁓ so ⁓ the yeah the scandal is ⁓ I mean this is a scandal like across the board with academia. ⁓ you haven't got a career in sci in the sciences ⁓ if you ⁓ go against the environmental ⁓ agenda. You know, it's it's as simple as that. And it's true. ⁓ Peter Reed has a channel and he's the guy that was ⁓ sacked by ⁓ James Cook University for going against the the belief that the Great Barriff was in peril. And ⁓ they sacked him and ⁓ I think he won his court case against them. But he ⁓ he's ⁓ spending a lot of time on his channel exposing ⁓ how a lot of ⁓ scientific research is ⁓ is ideologically driven and it's ⁓ It's overwhelmingly idi ideologically driven because the the publishers will sign off on anything that that pushes the the narrative. ⁓ and so I I feel as though I've I I've detected this ⁓ in in a number of places. ⁓ I think I ⁓ described the ⁓ the example of a report ⁓ by this is a government funded report by ⁓ McPhee and Belount. ⁓ And it I think it was twenty twenty two, ⁓ on the ⁓ report on the ⁓ efficacy of the shark mitigation program. And ⁓ this seventy page report, which I doubt many people could be bothered reading, you know. Even the minister who's responsible probably didn't read it thoroughly. And so w when you have s ⁓ six times mentioning that there's a hundred percent success rate for drones and and ⁓ smart drum loans and ⁓ when they were deployed and then way down the back of the report it says that we can't really draw any conclusions because the number of shark attacks is because shark attacks are so rare and random. So you can't draw the conclusions that he was actually drawing. But I mean a a minister or or somebody in in the minister's office who's given the responsibility of actually reading a thing. They're gonna see a hundred percent success rate and they'll just draw that conclusion, which is wrong. So I mean, I don't know where where these people can get it how these people can get it. But mean they get away with it. And I think that they th realise they can get away with it because nobody's gonna read the thing. The other one was if you
speaker-0: Ooh, ⁓ sorry, it had a little buffer there.
speaker-1: I was just gonna say that another one was ⁓ this is a common claim that we can't ⁓ We can't ⁓ that the technology cannot provide one hundred percent protection. Now this is an interesting one because what you hear when you hear that is that it's pretty close to a hundred percent but not successful, not a hundred percent successful. The thing is that it's actually closer to zero than a hundred percent. Okay. It's but but when you when they say that they can't provide a one hundred percent protection, the natural ⁓ response to that is is ⁓ understanding of that statement is that it's pretty close. But it's it's not pretty close. They they're not lying, 'cause technically this the the th it's a true statement that they can't provide a hundred percent. Ten ten percent is also not a hundred percent. You get it? So this is the manipulative way that they ⁓ influence policy policymakers and the community. You know. So they th th they're promoting ⁓ programs that ⁓ that that sound good but they're not.
speaker-0: What do you think like success would look like? Like what what amount of shark attacks per year, what measures have been put in place, what amount of shark fatalities per year? Because you saw you mentioned before that you're not in favor of culling, but you're in favor of, you know, if a shark gets in the net and it gets killed that way. But you're also saying that not many of the three dominant sharks that we're worried about get caught in the nets anyway. So how are we going to reduce that population enough? To help out those stats when they're only getting caught in the net.
speaker-1: It's not a reduction in population. That's not what I'm looking for. It but it hinges on this theory that the shark is deterred by the side of a dead shark. So for every
speaker-0: Dead shark has to come from a reduction in species, doesn't it?
speaker-1: Yeah, but marginal. Yeah. So I mean okay, imagine this
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah, but I'm saying. ⁓
speaker-1: Ten percent of population gets caught in the net and dies. ⁓ say the rest avoid I mean, hopefully the rest, but ninety percent of the rest avoid the area because they've seen ten percent of the population dead in in a shark net. Okay. That's preferable to killing ninety per cent of the population. But y so you're gonna have to reduce the population by at least half. I mean, I don't even know how much you'd have to reduce the population by because I mean you could you know this is another side to it which is kinda hard to get your head around. ⁓ because there are so few shark attacks, it might only be a few sharks. I mean, obviously it's a few sharks, because there's only a few shark attacks. I mean, ⁓ some of these shark attacks might be the same shark. In any case. this is ⁓ a point that a shark scientist, French shark scientist Eric Klur makes, 'cause he ⁓ has suggested that we ⁓ take a sample of the shark's DNA. And when a shark gets hooked on a smart drum line, you take ⁓ you check the DNA and if it turns out to be the shark that attacked someone previously, then it can be ⁓ killed. dispatched. ⁓ so ⁓ anyway he he the point that he's making is that all species, any any species, ⁓ ants, dogs, bears, humans, we have a personality that ranges that ranges from ⁓ shy to bold, and that it's only the most bold sharks that are attacking people. Not a lot of people ⁓ in the shark community agree with him, but it's an interesting ⁓ proposal. ⁓ I mean it's plausible, you know, there that it's only a a a an aggressive personality that wants to bite someone. But you would imagine that there could be situations where any shark, no matter how shy it is, will be startled and attack, bite someone because it was startled. So I mean, there are obviously scenarios where you can imagine that it ⁓ it doesn't apply. But ⁓ This is ⁓ the problem with reducing the the population of sharks, say, by fifty percent, you may not get that shark. You know what I mean? And so the reduction in the population, you'd have to be closer to eighty percent reduction in the population of sharks to ensure that you get those few bold sharks. So I I that's why we can't think that's why we've got to avoid ⁓ I mean, for the sake of the ecosystem, we can't cull enough. We're not gonna be able to cull enough. So so the number that you'd have to cull would have to be so great. y you know, if you're trying to protect people from shark attack, it's gonna have to be so great that it's gonna ⁓ compromise the ecosystem. And that's why we're never gonna go that way. The shark scientists will never let the government do that. And you know, science I mean, I don't know whether it's true, you know, that ⁓ the ecosystem's gonna collapse. I wish it wasn't, you know. I mean there there are reasons to think that ⁓ nature is more resilient than that. But ⁓ I'm not even gonna go there because, you know, the the scientists have you know, ⁓ settle that as far as I'm concerned. There's no way that the government's gonna listen to ⁓ other points of view. So that's why I'm keen on the ⁓ the nets, because theoretically a small minority of sharks will deter a a a a large majority of other sharks from entering the area.
speaker-0: Yeah, and then that's just sharks alone. So you're saying by adjusting the shape the distance ⁓ that that'll also you hope ⁓ limit the amount of bike hatch, which is a a terrible part of the
speaker-1: Yeah, the height. And so, you know, I I I would like to see them only two meters high. That will seriously reduce the number of air breathing mammals getting caught in it. But we have to compensate ⁓ you know, by having more shark nets. So try to maintain the same surface area or or increase the surface area the the the total surface area of netting. ⁓ I mean I I I'm Would seriously thinking that we just need a lot of very short nets because you see sharks ⁓ travel in different levels, ⁓ whereas air breathing creatures obviously travel mainly in the upper part of the ⁓ water column, but sharks travel along the bottom as well, and so theoretically it's just a matter of making sure that you kill. a number in the a certain number of sharks ⁓ in the net and ⁓ it doesn't matter if they're on the bottom. Theoretically sharks will discover those ⁓ those carcasses just as regularly as anywhere else in the net and be deterred from the the whole area. I mean actually I I don't know if it's true, but it's just just a theory.
speaker-0: If if you had full control over shark policy in Australia, what would you implement now, tomorrow, and and why? Like I know you've spoken about the stations and the nets. What else you've got control, Dan?
speaker-1: Just stop the ⁓ smart drum lines. Just stop ⁓ altogether. It's just a complete waste of money. I love the drone technology for contests. when kids are playing between the flags, certain locations. ⁓ rotate the nets. Huge number of nets. ⁓ only two to three metres off the seabed. ⁓ and the outer reefs. Somehow get the outer reefs happening. I mean it's gonna take decades to to to build a a a chain of reefs. But ⁓ I mean, you know, there may be other benefits to the the reefs. Maybe it's gonna, you know, be good for fisheries. ⁓ there may be other benefits. But I think it's a a bit you know, it's a it's decades in the making to solve this problem.
speaker-0: What do you think we're missing out on and what do you think the cost of not being able to have these sorts of chats, as you mentioned before, that when you throw a theory that's a little bit benign and and left field that you get eaten alive, what do you think's the consequence of having that mentality?
speaker-1: ⁓ very few people have the courage to speak up. You know, that applies to all you know, politics in general. And it's very sad that ⁓ That ⁓ Yeah, it's it's a shame that we can't communicate and ⁓ Oddly enough I ⁓ It's it was very rare that I got someone that actually engaged with me. I mean I if I said it was one percent, you know, it was ridiculous to actually engage in the conversation. ⁓ But I mean, what does it matter online? Because I I don't think I achieved anything there. You know, I mean we managed to get five hundred signatures for the petition. ⁓ I don't know if I you see, I've been told by a a certain journalist that You don't get anywhere reasoning with people. It there's gotta be an emotional ⁓ attachment to the the the issue. And ⁓ of course that's why ⁓ the Humane Society produces these videos of creatures, you know, whales, etc., getting caught in in a shark net and you've got the violins and you know, it it it it's a very emotional experience for people. And so they get their opinion and it's totally ingrained in them. And there's just no way to get people to think rationally. And as I said before, it's it's got a lot to do with id identifying with a side. ⁓ and I think that people are generally very lazy. I mean, ⁓ it's taken a fair bit of discipline on my part to get to the bottom of this ⁓ subject matter. ⁓ People don't have the time, let alone the inclination. You know what I mean? It's just ⁓ it's it's not easy. and what I've learnt in in this whole process is ⁓ that I've ⁓ I've had to really be careful not to be ⁓ one sided, you know, to try to to see from both points of view. And ⁓ I mean I've certainly got my criticisms of ⁓ people some people who have criticized me. ⁓ they take it terribly personally, you know, like I'm gonna kill their children or something. It's just nutty. But ⁓ I think it's terribly frustrating, it has been terribly frustrating for me that ⁓ the ⁓ the people who know the tr who know the data, they won't engage with me. I mean, they've had plenty of opportunities. I emailed them, you know, I've I've published this p ⁓ this pre print online on ResearchGate. I know through ResearchGate ⁓ that many of the shark scientists that I criticize in the paper have read the paper because it notifies me when they download it. So but they won't engage with me. I mean why do you think that they don't engage with me?
speaker-0: Why do I think?
speaker-1: Yeah, it's it's an interesting issue, isn't it?
speaker-0: ⁓ mate, I'm probably yeah, I think it is an interesting issue. I think it's missing from society a lot these days and I think that there's a lot of fear around being spoken out because the con consequences are instant and harsh. And so if anyone makes a mistake ⁓ I'm I'm just speaking about a mistake. ⁓ what really irks me about what happens in the world at the moment is someone in a higher position makes one mistake and then they have to resign or they have to move out of that role from one mistake. And as humans Well, as young humans with my daughter, I'm teaching her to make mistakes and that's how she learns. But I feel like we've come to a point now where if we make a mistake, we're we're out, you know. And so I don't know the contents or the or the context around why that person that you have mentioned in your article isn't engaging with you. But I do think that we miss out on a lot if we don't hear from all sides. And, you know, as you mentioned that the whale in the net is a extremely emotional thing for someone to see. But so is watching someone get attacked by a shark or watching your community suffer anxiety around going to the beach. And that's an emotional thing as well. So if we can if everyone can see that both sides are coming from an emotional point of view. And what we might not understand about their situation, they might not also understand about ours, that's a really good place to start. the conversation. And I think we need more than that. And I hope that this podcast can bring these points of view forward. ⁓ that's one long winded answer.
speaker-1: Well I mean I'm genu I'm genuinely interested in other people's points of view and I've actually benefited from listening to try to work out what is it that ⁓ people you know people are struggling with. ⁓ and that's ⁓ so I I I mean even the trolls who who have, you know, torn me to shreds online. ⁓ As offensive as it is, you ⁓ well I in a sense it it inspires me more so ⁓ to dig deeper. But also there's always gonna be a point somewhere in what somebody's saying, ⁓ which is worth listening to. ⁓ and so I've refined my opinions. Like initially I was ⁓ I mean, God, initially I was all for exterminating sharks, you know. But I mean that was an emotional response. ⁓ since ⁓ studying more I've learnt that ⁓ that the ⁓ ecosystem ⁓ depends on apex predators and ⁓ although there are arguments against ⁓ against ⁓ nature being that fragile, ⁓ I've come to the conclusion that as I've said, there's no point in fighting against that opinion, so I'll leave it. ⁓ so ⁓ Yeah, ⁓ my ⁓ opinions have evolved through ⁓ engaging with the topic. ⁓ it's terribly disappointing. I mean, for example, ⁓ my criticism of smart drum lines is supported by s ⁓ some research done ⁓ quite recently. research into what's called e DNA, ⁓ environmental DNA. So apparently you can sample I was really skeptical about this when I first heard about it, but I read the paper and it's it it seems really ⁓ plausible that the amount of ⁓ shark DNA in in in a sample of water just taken from ⁓ the beach can actually show the number of sharks in the area. I mean that sounds bizarre, doesn't it? Yeah. I highly recommend you reading it because it's a totally convincing argument. And so this study that was done on ⁓ on this coastline, ⁓ Evans and Ballinet. ⁓ more or less confirmed or in sorry, more or less, literally confirmed what my finding was that there are many more sharks in the area than are being relocated or or detected by the shark listening stations. So I wrote to the author, who works for DPI, and said, Doesn't that finding support my ⁓ the conclusions of my case study? No reply. You know, it's just like, are we in this? You know, but you see, we're not in it together. They're not trying to find a solution. They're they're more concerned about their careers. You know. Otherwise they they would be implementing some of these ideas. Certainly they wouldn't be wasting money on smart drum lines. Okay. I mean maybe it doesn't matter that we waste money on smart drum lines. I don't know. Maybe it's cool that that we spend ten million dollars on smart drum lines. ⁓ but obviously there's a limit ⁓ to how much you want to ⁓ invest in something that's of neg negligible value.
speaker-0: Please send that study through. I'd be very interested in reading it. And I don't yeah, I don't know where I currently sit with drum rine drum lines, because like you said, through engaging, you've been able to change some of your opinions. And you know, for the better or not, that's that's up to I guess you'll never know, really. But it's that engagement that allows us to sway, think differently, and then change on things that we might have had a hard stance on. And right now. I feel like drum lines, although having a baited hook five hundred meters off the beach seems ridiculous when you put it like that, but that's where we're getting our data on sharks. And although the data is unclear, the numbers are unclear, we are learning more. And over the over the last ten years, we've learnt a heck of a lot more than we had before that. And it's a lot of it's because we can tag them by hooking them on that drumline. And I think that that knowledge might eventually lead somewhere. Right now it feels murky because it feels like one, the data is unclear and the way it's being communicated to us is also a little bit unclear. And so that's funny. But we need that data, I feel like, to get to a certain point and to educate those people who may be harder to sway. Yeah, I agree.
speaker-1: So they they they don't want that shark attacking somebody
speaker-0: Yeah. I mean I feel I feel like that's a catch to that procedure. It's like I think that's probably a good thing because if that we need that data and if that tagged shark. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, and that so what I'm saying is I I agree with the relocation almost in this instance right now without looking into it more is because yeah, if that that does get tagged then it moves into shore and bites somebody, then they're gonna have a lot to answer to and then that's gonna throw I think we might not move forward.
speaker-1: With the data, yeah. One of things that we're learning about the ⁓ from the ⁓ tagged ⁓ from the data ⁓ that that shows shark movements is the correlation between environmental conditions. ⁓ so if you have a a lot of sharks in an area indicated by the number of sharks being tagged, and you can see a correlation with certain environmental conditions like water temperature, then you could keep an eye on water temperature. there's a an indication of risk. But I'm sceptical about that as much as it's ⁓ see I c I can see how it would be useful because then you could say, okay, now the government has to focus on this stretch of coast. Okay. But not to tell surfers that now is a high risk time because it's never gonna be that much of a risk. Because the
speaker-0: I like that rating system because again it comes back Well maybe mate, maybe you might just listen to maybe it's just like it's not saying okay it's high risk, I'm not going in. Some people may, but that's their decision.
speaker-1: Do you change your behavior? Well well yeah, some people okay, so the way I I I phrase it is that you're gonna have somebody who's got ⁓ two kids in the in in school and ⁓ and he's got his wife and he's got ⁓ what is it, the the the mortgage. He can't risk there's too many people depending on him, okay, to risk a shark attack. And so the risk when it gets down to one in a hundred thousand, maybe that's ⁓ not acceptable for him. Right. But There's always gonna be this is a point that I keep making, there's always gonna be half a dozen people who paddle out. And it you only have to have half a dozen people for someone to be attacked. Because it doesn't matter to a shark whether there's fifty people in the surf or five people in the surf. It's gonna be a shark attack. So if you shoot the other forty five who don't go out, you know, you're protecting them, but you're not actually reducing the rate of shark attacks. 'Cause somebody will still be attacked.
speaker-0: Let's not word it as like a should say that's a high alert. Let's just say that the study has been done that upwelling increases the amount of great whites that come closer to shore. And so if there's a ⁓ higher number of great whites that are closer to shore, you are then more likely to have an interaction. So that study has found that. So you're just educating that person that that water is closer in today. So old mate with the mortgage and the family and people relying on him, he might go down after that. After his day's work to keep his sanity and go for a surf, but he might look and there might be no one out. He might see some birds diving out the back. He might go, hang on. Okay. It's an upwelling day here. He might, but was it's taking our responsibility into our education. It's like being on the road. So I've had two beers. I'm feeling really tired. ⁓ this stretch of road's a bit dangerous. ⁓ there's been a few incidents here lately. I might just stay at a mate's house. It's just like taking these little things. Okay.
speaker-1: Right.
speaker-0: May change the situation.
speaker-1: I humbly disagree with you. And my reasoning is simply that you're gonna always have because I mean I was a part of this, right? You're always gonna have someone paddling out. And as soon as you have a couple of people out, then you're gonna have more people paddling out because they figure, and this is young people, they figure that it's safe. Now, how can you how can you protect those that second wave of people? I can understand if you want to blame those first people. who know that it's dangerous, but we can't police people that much.
speaker-0: I'm not I'm not going off the argument to say that the next group won't paddle out. I'm just saying what what's lost if we don't educate that one guy? I like beyond I'm not it's it's not like don't because the other guys are gonna paddle out then don't tell the first guy.
speaker-1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Educate everyone, that's fine, but don't expect there's going to reduce the rate of shark attacks. Don't expect that. Because there's always going to be enough people out there for a shark to attack. There's always going to be. You know, whenever whenever there I mean, we've only got some think of it this way. Imagine if we had a whole lot of artificial reefs that doubled the number of shark loc ⁓ sorry, surf breaks on the coast. That would effectively double the number of shark attacks. Same population of people. But distributed. So it's the distribution of shark sorry, it's the distribution of surf breaks that determines the rate of shark attacks, not the number of people in the water.
speaker-0: How are you where are you getting that data from?
speaker-1: That's logical.
speaker-0: Yeah, but like if you're saying that that's logical, to me, mine feels logical as well. So I'm saying where in terms of that ⁓ discrepancy there, where
speaker-1: What wait can can you tell me that again? I I didn't quite understand it.
speaker-0: So like in terms of you were saying that by people ⁓ altering their behaviours off education, you said we'll not lower the risk of them getting attacked by a shark.
speaker-1: Well, only because there's always going to be someone who takes the risk.
speaker-0: Well, yeah, but but what I'm saying is like why would that not but why would the why would yours ⁓ how do I explain this? You know what I'm saying? Like you're saying that your situation there, it goes off surf breaks and the distribution of sharks across there. But it's the people who are frequenting those surf breaks.
speaker-1: Well all I can say is okay, so w w where I'm coming from is a personal experience of the risk that people are prepared to take to have a wave. Okay. So long as there's a surf break And no one's out. Presumably no one's out because they've been warned not to go surfing. There's always going to be someone who paddles out if there are good waves. Not even good waves, just anything to take off on. If you can get a a drop and a and a few turns in, you know, there's a lot of desperate a lot of people this is the other side of it that I think I've said a few times now. It's so hard to get a wave when it's crowded that You're eager to get out there when there's no one out because you finally get an opportunity to to get a few waves. So I'm not against education, okay? I I I think that everybody needs to learn about this situation, hopefully all dimensions of it. ⁓ but the ⁓ the increased risk I mean get back to the the the the the the estimate that I came up with was one in ten thousand. ⁓ the figure for the worst spot in the worst shark ⁓ hot spot in the world, Reunion Island, was one in twenty eight thousand for every hour that you're out there. There's a one in twenty-eight thousand risk of attack. I mean, why wouldn't you why wouldn't you go for a surf with I mean, you can't fear ⁓ life that much. You know what I mean? Some people will fear life that much because they've got a lot of responsibility. But there's an awful lot of people who haven't got any responsibility. And there's also people, I mean, this is the interesting thing about VK feminist ⁓ Rebecca Olive, she said that she actually gets a bit of a thrill out of pedaling out knowing that she's a part of the food chain. That's a real thing. I saw people in in during our ⁓ shark crisis. There was a fella sitting off the end of the wall. I don't think there was even a peak there. He was out beyond. You know. The guy was clearly challenging himself. And we we all have these messed up problems with our minds, you know. And maybe and this is the point that Rebecca Olive was making. I don't know if she was aware of how far people would take it, but there are people who will go out there and and challenge themselves to the fear of ⁓ of being attacked. ⁓ you know, it's it's liberating in some weird way that you feel like ⁓ you're a part of nature and and ⁓ you know, come and get me, I'm sick of life. This is how I wanna go. You know what I mean? It it's just like that's one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is it's the people who ⁓ who ⁓ you know won't even surf in South Australia, you know. It's just like you know what I mean?
speaker-0: Yeah, no, for sure. It's a big spectrum. And I think depending on what you've been exposed to and where your mental state is is where you sit on that spectrum, it can fluctuate. And I love Rebecca's work. I've actually got her on the podcast, already recorded the podcast with her. So it went into a bit of that. And it would it would, you know, taking the wild out of it would really change the experience. So who knows if we even want that. But I think it's like when the It's not we want the wild out of it completely, which I think is it was great to get to that earlier because it's like what are we looking for as a as a rate of success? Would that be to take the wild out of it completely? No, it wouldn't. ⁓ but it's just when that risk starts to feel a lot more than it used to, and it becomes that risk that you're you're not comfortable ⁓ living with without sort of learning more or trying to change it or trying to work towards a better solution, if that makes sense. ⁓
speaker-1: Okay, well I I mean I sort of got
speaker-0: Anything we haven't touched on, mate, 'cause it's been a long chat, but is there anything that you feel is important to touch on before we before we move out?
speaker-1: It's an enormous topic. I ⁓ I think that ⁓ I I mean I'm glad that we've touched on the fact that I haven't had much satisfaction communicating with DPI. I think that's ⁓ that's really important that I get that message out. the government doesn't want to hear my point of view. You know, I mean they know it, but they don't want hear it, you know. I've ⁓ I've sent them everything that I've ever written. ⁓ I think it's very ⁓ very sad that ⁓ that creatures are valued more than humans. And ⁓ I think that I've got reasonable arguments against the way people justify it. I don't think it's justifiable. I I I value hum humans I mean there are people who who simply don't value humans, but I value humans so far beyond a whale getting caught in the net. It's there's there's no comparison. But there are people who genuinely think the whales are more valuable. I mean, look, the way you could look at it is the suffering. ⁓ I mean, you know, obviously there are some eco mad people who would say that, you know, dolphins and and whales suffer just as much as us, but I don't think so. We're we are suffering creatures and when somebody loses a loved one, it's it it's they're they're damaged for life, you know. This is something we're gonna take more seriously. And so I think that somehow people have to ⁓ get their conscience ⁓ back on track ⁓ and stop blaming individuals, stop using the suffering of individuals to ⁓ get some sort of sense of satisfaction that mankind is finally losing in the battle against nature. That's I think that's the over overarching ⁓ theme that I think I'm I'm might most concerned about. ⁓ I unfortunately that's kind of where the conversation has to go because the politicians are following the electorate. And the electorate has been effectively ⁓ indoctrinated ⁓ with the environmental message for since the mid seventies, you know. It's ⁓ it's fifty years of having environmentalism rammed down our throats. And as much as I consider myself generally an i environmentally concerned person, I ⁓ I think that it's going too far when we are losing people to shark attacks and there's an increasing rate of shark attacks. So I mean somewhere along the line, we'll turn the other way and I just want it to be sooner than later.
speaker-0: Thanks, Dan. appreciate your time, mate. That was yeah, really comprehensive chat that covered a lot of angles. ⁓ took took a couple of days to get there with two separate sessions. But ⁓ yeah, mate. Thanks for the work you do and all your research and putting theories out there, you know, and also just having the courage to speak about it and to admit that you often ⁓ change. Or adapt new thinking due to what you've read and engaged with and listened to. So ⁓ thanks a lot, mate. Any closing words?
speaker-1: Thank you, Brett, for ⁓ the opportunity. I think the key to ⁓ what you just said then is to actually ⁓ if you're seeking a solution rather than winning an argument, that's ab absolutely key. You've gotta want a solution. Then you listen to the other person's point of view. If you're just interested in beating someone like a troll tries to ridicule someone online, there's no listening going on, you know, it's not a conversation. So I would suggest that people ⁓ take that approach that you actually do focus on the objective, ⁓ which for me is to reduce the rate of shark attacks. and ⁓ so that's why I'm you know open my heart to other points of view. ⁓ and the good thing is is that you kind of ⁓ end up discovering options that you might not otherwise have considered. So that's that's the key is to actually want a solution, sincerely want a solution. And ⁓ and not to try to win the argument 'cause that's just that's just childish, really.
speaker-0: Thanks, Dan. All the best, mate. Appreciate it.
speaker-1: Thank you, Brett. See you mate.
speaker-0: Just want to throw a quick thank you to anyone who has tuned in so far, supported and shared the podcast, messaged feedback and shared stories of their own. That stuff is priceless and so appreciated. So thank you very much. And keep it coming. Send voice notes, send your experiences. What are you seeing at your local? How are your mates and community feeling? What guests would you like to hear from? This podcast was produced and engineered by Louis. Mulla Productions. Thanks for tuning in. Until next time, have a great week.
