Shark Nets and the Media

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 6^th 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 15^th of July a short distance from the first attack. Another two attacks occurred in the same incident on the 3^rd 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 11^th 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.