This essay addresses the increased use of shark nets
and the impact it has on the environment. It links the negative stigma created
around sharks created by humans and the media and how this has resulted in the
need for protection, thus the implementation of shark nets. It also addresses
the impact these shark nets have on the environment versus their effectiveness
in protecting humans.
In the past hundred years, the media and mass
hysteria has transformed one of the world’s most majestic creatures and the
oceans top predator into a man-eating monster. Sharks have become one of the
most feared predators known to man. With the help of movies such as Jaws and
the rare shark attack, humans have created shark stereotypes and named the
animals, killing machines. ‘Our views of the environment have been, and are
being, articulated and shaped through multiple media and forms of
communication.’ (Hanson, A (2010). Environment,
Media and Communication. Routledge. 1-5)
For years human have created a negative stigma with
regards to sharks. In 1957 five people were bitten just off the coast of Kwa-Zulu
Natal, South Africa. This created mass hysteria in the small coastal town in
South Africa, forcing the South African government to take action. This led to
the dispatching of a Navy war ship, which deployed weapons intended to destroy
target sub-marines, known as depth charging, into the ocean in an effort to
eradicate the shark populations along the shoreline. The second attack used a
gunnery squad that shot off high-powered rifles into the ocean. The attack was
devastating, killing thousands of sharks, also resulting in copious amounts of
by-catch.
“Communication then is a central aspect of how we
come to know, and to know about, the environment and environmental issues, and
the major media are a central public arena through which we become aware of
environmental issues and the way in which they are addressed, contested and,
perhaps, resolved.” (Hanson, A (2010). Environment,
Media and Communication. Routledge. 1-6) The catalyst for the stigma created around sharks was in the creation of
the film Jaws by Steven Spielberg, which was a worldwide blockbuster in 1975.
The novel written by Peter Benchley inspired the creation of the film. The novel
was inspired by the 1916 great white shark attacks along the New Jersey
coastline. The movie Jaws instilled fear into beach goers’ worldwide and is
greatly responsible for the way in which sharks are viewed and treated today. Shark
attacks that would previously not have been thought of by all were now top of
mind for all beach goers.
Hanson argues “socially constructed problems only
become social problems when someone draws public attention to them, and makes
claims in public about them.” (Hanson, A
(2010). Environment, Media and Communication. Routledge. 1-15) Another example of the negative stigma created
around sharks is what is now known as “The Summer of the Shark” branded by Time
Magazine in 2001. The hype began on the 6th of July 2001, when an
eight-year-old boy was attacked by a bull shark while standing in shallow
waters. The shark tore off his arm, which subsequently resulted in the shark
being hunted and shot; the arm was removed and later surgically reattached to
the boys’ body. A second attacked occurred later that day to a New York
holidaymaker in the Bahamas. The third attack on a surfer occurred on the 15th
of July a short distance from the first attack. Another two attacks occurred in
the same incident on the 3rd of September 2001.
Hanson also states, ’’problems and issues of various
kinds only become recognized as such through talk, communication, discourse
which defines or ‘constructs’ them as problems or issues for public or
political concern.” (Hanson, A (2010). Environment,
Media and Communication. Routledge. 1-14) This is evident in that the attacks caused a media frenzy and created a
huge outcry from the public. The events were being reported on a daily basis by
all American news stations and publications. It even resulted in shark feeding
dives being banned off the coast of Florida. The shark attacks became
sensationalized and created mass hysteria within the United States with every
sighting and small event being reported. The World Weekly news tabloid even ran
an article that read, “Castro trained
killer sharks to attack U.S." Despite
the number of attacks there was little difference in numbers from those of 1995
and 2000. To date there is no evidence of any significant increase of attacks
during that time and many believe that the media sensational at the time was a
result of a lack of news worthy stories within the United States during July –
September 2001. This is evident, as the hype instantly died in the wake on the
September 11th World Trade Centre attacks. In the book Give Me A
Break written by investigative journalist John Stossel its states, “Instead of putting risks in proportion, we [reporters] hype interesting
ones. Tom Brokaw, Katie
Couric, and countless others called
2001 the "summer of the shark." [...] In truth, there wasn't a
remarkable surge in shark attacks in 2001. There were about as many in 1995 and
2000, but 1995 was the year of the O.J. Simpson trial, and 2000 was
an election year. The summer of 2001 was
a little dull, so reporters focused on sharks.” (Stossel, J: Give Me a break,
2004)
The hype created by the media around the film Jaws
and “The Summer of Shark” has had a long term damaging effect in shifting the
publics’ perceptions towards sharks. This is evident at the use of sharks in
multiple advertisements and campaigns. For example an advert created by NIL
household cleaning products depicts the edge of a NIL packet appearing out of
soap and bubbles, above it the copy reads “Serial Cleaner”. The edge of the
packet resembles a shark fin gliding through water, which is substituted by the
detergents bubbles. The advert attempts to play on our perception that sharks
are serial killers; effectively killing anything and everything it comes across
in its path. NILs ‘clever’ parallel tries to conceptually link their brands
cleaning power and effectiveness with our negative perceptions towards sharks.
Another example is an advert created by Santa Casa de
Sao Paulo with regards to blood donation. The main copy reads “Please, don’t
dive with white sharks.” And the below copy reads, “Don’t waste your blood.
Donate.” This advertisment suggests that it is inevitable that you will die if
you dive with sharks and that your blood could have potentially gone to better
use elsewhere.
These modern day campaigns still use the fear
instilled in people with regards to sharks in order to convey their message. It
has become a shark versus human conflict. Which is only being fought from one
side. This is not a war or a conflict it’s genocide against sharks.
Due to this negative stigma created by humans and the
media, humans feel the need for protection against the oceans greatest
predator. Thus the use of shark nets has been implemented all around the world.
Shark nets are submerged nets in the ocean that are
used to create a barrier between sharks and a particular area. Shark nets do
not provide guaranteed protection but the aim is to help curb the shark
activity within a certain area, particularly along the shoreline where human
activity is at it’s highest. Shark nets have been designed in various ways to
serve a multiple of purposes. Shark nets are generally submerged between four
to six meters under the ocean. Thus to avoid boats, kayaks and jet skis getting
caught in the nets. The length of the shark nets varies depending on the area
it aims to control. The nets are created out of a mesh. The mesh holes vary in
size depending on the type of shark net being used. There are three nets that
are used predominantly across the world. The most commonly used nets are long
line gill nets, which are predominantly used in Australia and South Africa. The
nets are as much barriers as they are traps. The mesh holes have been created
at a larger size designed to ensnare and trap the sharks that try breach it. It
also allows for other harmless sea life to pass through it unharmed. Despite this
it has resulted in enormous amounts of shark fatalities as well as other larger
marine life being ensnared and killed including seals, sea turtles, dolphins
and even whales. The second most commonly used net has much smaller mesh holes
which help prevent the animals being trapped in them all though they are not
entirely effective in the prevention of this. Buoys and floats are used to
indicate where the shark nets are placed and anchors and weights are used in
order to help keep them in the right position with the ever-moving ocean
currents and tides. Permanent nets are anchored along the shoreline and can be
seen above the water line as they are attached to the surrounding are in order
to keep them in place. The most effective form of shark nets is called
exclusion nets, which segregate a small portion of the beach, which allows safe
swimming for bathers. The nets are anchored to the seabed and protrude out the
surface level of the ocean. Thus creating an entirely segregated area. The mesh
also used in creating these nets is significantly smaller in diameter therefore
entangling the least amount of ocean life.
The most prominent users of shark nets around the
world are Australia, America, Hong-Kong and South Africa. Australia currently
have fifty-one netted beaches, Hong-Kong netted all of its thirty-six beaches
after three swimmers were killed in ten days in 1995 according to the Save Our
Seas Foundation. And according to the Kwa-Zulu Natal Sharks Board, South Africa
have nets at thirty-seven different beaches between Port Edward and Richards
Bay. Some of the beaches have more than one net such as Richards Bay (four
nets) and Durban (seventeen nets) and have a total length of 23.4 km.
There are few positive effects of shark nets other
then the fact that it helps reduce shark to human contact. There are also many
misconceptions surrounding shark nets and the purpose they are meant to serve.
Due to the fact that the nets are submerged, do not reach the bottom of the
ocean and are only a certain length, it allows for sharks to swim over, under
and around them. A video entitled “Shark Nets” created by the Save Our Seas
Foundation (SOSF) featuring SOSF Chief
Photographer Thomas P. Peschak, he states 40%
of Sharks actually being caught on the beach-side of the net and these nets are actually gill
nets designed to entangle, suffocate and kill as many sharks as possible. He
goes onto say that the rational behind the nets is, reducing the amount of
Sharks in the sea will also reduce the chance of a shark coming into contact
with bathers.
Shark nets catch far more than the intended target
sharks and unfortunately produce copious amounts of by-catch. They catch
thousands of other marine life as well as hundreds of other harmless species of
shark. In the interview with Save Our Seas
Foundation Chief Photographer Thomas P. Peschak, he states that an average total of 58 turtle, 230 rays, 50 dolphin and
5 whales are caught every year in the Kwa-Zulu Natal nets alone. One can only
imagine the total annual by-catch of all the worlds’ shark nets combined.
Many of these species are endangered animals and the long-term effects
of this could severely damage the oceans natural eco system. There are positive and negative aspects in
implementing shark nets. But the negative affects heavily out weigh the
positives. That is not dismissing the fact that human life is not important; it
must be acknowledged that we are visitors in their territory and must respect
the rights of all animals within there natural habitats. As the oceans top
predator the role that sharks play is vital to the natural sustainability of
the oceans eco-system.
Sharks are a vital component of the oceans
eco-system. They maintain the balance, as they are the only predators to sea
lions, seals and other large fish that pray on the rest of the oceans smaller
sea life. If the population of the sea creatures is not maintained they will
slowly destroy smaller fish and ocean specimens’ populations. Sharks already
have an increasingly lower reproduction rate and the use of shark nets are
devastating shark reproduction numbers as smaller sharks get entrapped and
snared before they have the chance to reproduce. The consequences of having no
sharks in the oceans eco system will result in a slow brake down of the oceans
entire eco system and eventually lead to its destruction as a whole.
Due to this stigma attached to sharks it is vital to
start changing human perceptions towards sharks. Humans perception towards
sharks needs to be reversed and it needs to start immediately. Humans need to
stop observing sharks as man killers and rather as the majestic creatures they
are and as one of the world’s most astounding predators.
The most notable advertising campaign is called
Rethink The Shark and is an awareness campaign by AfriOceans Conservation
(AOCA), created by agency, Saatchi and Saatchi, it was also run by the Save Our
Seas Foundation. The series of three advertisements are an attempt to change
human perception towards sharks. The videos have received multiple awards including
the Campaign Award at the ‘Jackson Hole Film Festival in 2009, the Interfilm
Berlin Viral Video Award in 2009, Best of Category in the Non Broadcast Program
Category in Montana 2009.
AfriOceans said in their reasoning behind their
campaign was, “Every time someone is bitten by a shark it gains international
attention. We at AfriOceans therefore remain committed to dispelling the myths
and setting records straight.”
A series of three videos were created and filmed at
Fish Hoek beach in Cape Town, South Africa. The videos run for approximately
1min 08 seconds and attempts to put fatal shark attacks into perspective by
comparing the amount of fatalities between sharks and an everyday used objects
including a toaster, a chair and a kite. The idea was that a defected toaster,
chairs and kites kill considerably more people annually than a shark does, so
why are we still so afraid of sharks if the odds of being killed by one are so
slim?
The video starts by panning across a beach filled
with bathers on a hot summers day, where people are relaxing, swimming and
playing with no worries other than having fun on the beach. A boy runs into the
water with his bodyboard and once he goes under a wave, lifesavers come into
screen with binoculars but as the boy emerges they notice no problems.
The camera begins moving in and around bathers,
giving the viewer the sense of curiosity we are so accustomed to seeing in
shark movies where the viewer has a sharks eye view of the surroundings. Still
from the view of the shark angle, the camera comes up close on a swimmer and
she immediately panics as if there were danger. As she screams, a previously
relaxed beach turns into a frenzied panic and mass hysteria and once the
lifesaver blows his whistle, everyone begins running out of the water for
safety. Once everyone’s out, people on the beach begin pointing to the ocean in
shock and horror, and it’s at that point that the camera focuses on the
attacker and as it does, the DER DUM, DER DUM, DER DUM music associated with a
shark attack begins to play.
In the first video the ‘attacker’ turns out to be a
toaster floating in the water and the text, “Last year 791 people were killed
by defective toasters,” followed by, “9 by sharks.” In the second video the
“attacker” is a chair floating in the water and the text, “Last year 652 people
were killed by chairs,” followed by “4 by sharks.” In the third video the
“attacker” is a kite floating in the water and the text, “Last year 358 people
were killed by kites,” followed by “4 by sharks. As the shots then fades to
black, ‘Rethink the shark’ appears followed by the initiative sponsors, AOCA,
and Two Oceans Aquarium.
An animation followed in the Rethink The Shark
campaign (done by final year students at the Cape Town Animation School) called
‘Meet Wilson’. The animations narrator educates us on the slim chance one has
of getting killed by a shark, by comparing it to larger risks of being killed
by things encountered in everyday life, while Wilson illustrates these risks
while he travels from his house to the beach.
“Meet Wilson. He’s about to show you that there are
far more dangerous things in everyday life than, sharks.” Wilson exists his
house in his swimming attire and jumps onto his scooter, and rather recklessly
begins driving down the road.
“Did you know, you more likely to die from chocking,”
Wilson leans down to the foot of his scooter and
grabs a sweet. He tosses it into his mouth and begins to choke.
“Car accidents,”
As he chokes, Wilson begins swerving his scooter and
notices a truck heading his way.
“Or being murdered,”
Wilson’s just managed to miss the truck when he
encounters a ‘Jason looking’ murderer wielding a chainsaw in his direction, and
he is only just able to duck beneath narrowly avoiding decapitation.
“Than you are from a shark attack.”
“Even bees kill more people every year.”
Wilson’s face is engulfed in a swarm of bees, but
manages to reach the beach alive. He throws his beach gear down and immediately
runs straight to the sea, diving headfirst. Before he can come up, Wilson’s
staring face to face with a shark and takes out his camera and takes a photo.
“We kill over 70 million sharks every year,”
It cuts to a fisherman slaughtering a shark at the
rainy dark docks, where piles of already dead sharks lie next to him.
“They kill only 5 of us.”
The shark looks scared of Wilson and quickly swims
away.
“Isn’t it time to rethink the shark?”
The three series videos and the “Meet Wilson” video
although completely different in style, aim to educate and in turn change
perceptions and dispel media created myths of sharks being human predators. The
campaign is very effective in portraying the message and is the most notable
shark awareness campaign to date. Its accurately poses the dangers sharks are
to humans which in reality is very insignificant.
A local case study in Cape Town, South Africa
demonstrates the proposal of potentially implementing the use of shark
exclusion nets of a portion of Fish Hoek beach along the False Bay coastline.
Fish Hoek beach has had three shark attack incidents
since 2004, with two being fatalities and the third resulting in severe
injuries including the loss of a limb. Due to these attacks, Fish Hoek beach
has been negatively impacted both socially and recreationally, and thus the
South Peninsula Subcouncil have begun the process of putting together a
proposal to begin the trial of shark exclusion nets in the southern section of Fish
Hoek beach, this is being done in order to create a long-term place were
bathers can swim safely and have peace of mind whilst doing so as well as
having as little impact on the environment as possible
Exclusion nets are small meshed nets that prevent the
capture of marine species acting only as a barrier, which is in contrast to
long line gill nets used by the Kwa-Zulu Natal Sharks Board whom the city
contracted in 2006 to assess the potential of the net implementation. The use
of long line gills nets is not a viable option as the beach covers an extensive
area and financially would not be viable.
The South Peninsula Subcouncil are trying to use as
little beach space as possible in implementing the exclusion nets in order for
it to have as little impact on the environment and its surroundings as
possible. The exclusion nets will be implemented diagonally off Jaggers Walk on
the south side of the beach to across the Law Enforcement offices on the beach.
The area size will leave 140m of beach, and enclose 355m of water whilst at the
same time, provide more than adequate space for bathers and training area for
the life-saving club.
The use of exclusion nets will be implemented under a
research permit, where if the nets were implemented long term, would require
Environmental Authorization in terms of the National Environmental Management
Act which is said to be the most effective and accurate way of assessing the
success of the nets as a long term safety device.
Under the confines of a research permit, the
installation of the exclusion nets does not require public consultation. The City
of Cape Town needs to asses the currents situation with regards to public
perception of sharks at Fish Hoek beach and implement a strategy in order to
help curb this, thus the implementation of shark exclusion nets. A balance
needs to be maintained and an assessment of what the impact that these nets
would have on the local Fish Hoek community, with specific reference to local
businesses and the tourism industry, as well as the protection of the natural
environment. The City will also need to work closely with current trek netters
at Fish Hoek beach to ensure there livelihoods are sustained and that they are
not negatively impacting the surrounding environment. The City believes that
the implementation of the nets is a viable, cost-effective and practical
option, with minimal ecological impact and through the correct resources,
training and daily management, the nets would not alter the sense of community
in the area.
Ald Walker believes that the nets would be in public
interest because they are likely to have significant social and economic
benefits for the whole Fish Hoek area and community, whilst at the same time
preserving the rich marine environment. If the all the requirements are met the
shark exclusion nets will begin to be installed as a trial basis in October
2012. Although shark nets have a negative impact and are an out dated method
exclusion nets can be beneficial, for example, at Fish Hoek beach.
http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/CitytoconaproposedtrialinstallationofasharkFishHoekB.aspx
The topic of sharks is a controversial one, which is
evident in recent events, especially in the False Bay region of South Africa.
In my opinion sharks are intelligent species that have begun to relate humans
to food with regards to chumming the water. I believe chumming should be banned
in its entirety and that the use of shark nets needs to be banned. With modern
day technology there has to be a more viable way in order to help “protect”
humans from sharks. But when you look at the statistics, its sharks that need
protection from us, the world’s number one predator, man.
Thomas P. Peschak. (2009).
Shark Nets - The real killers of the sea?. Africa Geographic. 17 (4),
22-28.
Hanson, A (2010). Environment,
Media and Communication. London: Routledge. 1-236
Wikipedia. (2010). Shark
Nets. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_net. Last accessed 20th
April 2012.
Pollack, M. (2012). City to
consider a proposed trial installation of a shark exclusion net for Fish Hoek
Beach . Available:
http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/CitytoconaproposedtrialinstallationofasharkFishHoekB.aspx.
Last accessed 01st April 2012.
Neff, C. (2012). The Rise Of
Shark Nets?. Available: http://saveourseas.com/articles/the_rise_of_shark_nets.
Last accessed 02nd April 2012.
Kock, A. (2011). Living With
Sharks. Available: http://saveourseas.com/articles/living_with_sharks. Last
accessed 02nd April 2012.
Krige, N. (2012). The
controversy of sharks. Available: http://www.gotravel24.com/southernafrica/feature-focus/controversy-sharks.
Last accessed 01st April 2012.
Rochat, L. (2012). Rethink
The Shark - Meet Wilson. Available:
http://www.lesleyrochat.com/news-and-blog/rethink-the-shark-meet-wilson.html.
Last accessed 02nd April 2012.
McCarthy, T. (2001). Why Can't
We Be Friends?. Time Magazine. 158 (5), 1-36.
AfriOceans. (2009). Rethink
The Shark. Available: http://www.aoca.org.za/pages/2188/rethink-the-shark.
Last accessed 16th April 2012.
AfriOceans. (2009). Video
Productions. Available:
http://www.aoca.org.za/pages/2190/video-productions. Last accessed 18th April
2012.
AfriOceans. (2009). Rethink
The Shark - Meet Wilson. Available:
http://www.aoca.org.za/pages/2190/video-productions. Last accessed 16th April
2012.
Thomas P. Peschak. (2011). Shark
Nets - Video. Available: http://saveourseas.com/videos/shark_nets. Last
accessed 15th April 2012.
Meerman, R. (2009). Shark
Nets. Available:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2002/03/07/2116717.htm. Last accessed
17th April 2012.
