Knowing I’m a shark-lover, friends ask, “What do you think about the shark cull?” Living on an island with limited internet generally means I have no idea what they’re talking about. But the shark cull in Western Australia is a contentious issue, causing ripples through the marine community and making headlines internationally.

For those who do live on a deserted island, the cull ran from Australia Day (January 26th, 2014) for three months. Seventy-two baited hooks, attached to drum lines were laid 1 kilometre offshore of Perth’s popular beaches by the Western Australia Government, in a bid to reduce the risk of shark attacks, by providing a means to catch and slay any shark greater than 3 metres.

The WA Premier implemented these indiscriminate measures after sharks “attacked” 6 people over a 26-month period (beginning September 2011). An increase from the 1 fatality that occurred in the 26-month period prior.

Generally when there is a marked increase in shark attacks there is a reason.

Fifty-six, of the one-hundred and one shark attacks in South America, have occurred on a north-eastern beach in Brazil, Recife. There was an obvious increase in attacks from 1992 and not because sharks suddenly craved “human” upon their menu. Three reasons were attributed:

• migrating sharks departed their “shark highway” or ocean trench to hunt in shallower waters.

• construction of a port south of Recife, caused the closure of two estuaries utilised by bull sharks as nurseries. The sharks relocated, with their new breeding estuary flowing directly into Recife waters.

• a slaughterhouse was disposing of blood in nearby rivers, potentially enticing the bull sharks closer.

Similar circumstances have also been identified in Port St John’s, a South African beach dubbed as the worlds deadliest, due to the one-hundred percent fatality rate from shark attacks; they are close to a bull shark nursery, and entrails from slaughtered animals are tossed into the sea by traditional healers.

Both countries took very different approaches to reducing casualties.

Like Western Australia, South Africa implemented shark culls. This was discontinued and instead, South Africa was the first country in the world to protect them in 1991, which led to opportunities for cage diving operations. Shark attacks increased, and so Shark Spotters was launched in 2004. This program operates across Cape Town, as a way to promote environmentally friendly co-existence between beach-users and sharks through research, education and an innovative warning system; flags flutter across beaches notifying users of recent shark activity and conditions, with sirens sounding when a shark is spotted whereby users exit the water until the visitor has departed. Since the program began there have been 2 fatalities and 1 bite incident. All shark sightings are recorded providing data for researchers to identify patterns. Both sharks and users are benefiting from the scheme.

Hawaii also trialed a culling program from 1959 - 76, which saw more than 4500 sharks killed, yet was deemed “ineffective” as shark attack figures remained unchanged. Despite a spate of attacks in recent years, including 13 attacks and 2 fatalities last year, another shark cull is “off the table.” Authorities claim the attacks are due to mistaken identity and food shortages from overfishing pressures. Beachgoers are purchasing personal shark deterrent devices, which repel sharks through the emission of an electronic pulse. Sharks have gel filled sacs within their snout, which sense the electrical currents of its prey when within a metre. The deterrent repels the shark by causing discomfit and muscle spasms, keeping the user safe and the shark unharmed.

In Brazil a shark catch program was introduced, but instead of utilizing a catch-and-kill policy, it’s policy releases the sharks caught far out at sea with a GPS tag. According to the GPS data, all 81 tagged sharks have migrated to other areas. They’ve also dissuaded sharks swimming closer to shore by sinking three boats to create an artificial reef on the far side of an ocean trench. This reef has attracted fish, in-turn enticing sharks away from the beach. There has been one fatality since the artificial reef was created in 2006.

So what is the Western Australia shark cull achieving? (besides creating controversy).

Zero great whites were caught. So what “man-eater” sharks were? Tigers. 180 in total with 65 killed or found dead upon the hooks. Yet, in 34 years there’s only been one fatality by a tiger shark in Australia. That’s a lot of money for one “maneater.” 16 were smaller than 3 metres, which the Government ensured hooks weren’t designed to catch. Some undersized sharks were partly devoured, demonstrating the program lures larger predators closer to shore. If the undersized shark was alive, it was released. But their welfare was not followed upon, with activists documenting footage of undersized sharks left for dead upon the ocean floor.

With all sharks greater than 3 metres shot in the head after ensnaring upon the baited hook, we’re murdering those sharks capable of reproducing. 34 were female. Some shark species wait 20 years to reach sexual maturity, then have an 8-12 month gestation period, bearing from one to forty pups every three years. By targeting these reproductive sharks, we’re applying further pressure to collapsing populations, with estimates that sharks have declined by up to 90% worldwide.

But with the increased awareness of their importance to our marine environment, what was encouraging were the protests against the cull. And not just in our capital cities, but in London, San Francisco, Spain, Argentina and Cape Town; the “human-hunters” aren’t only in our waters, nor will the cull only impact us.

As Australians we have a love and connection with the ocean. It’s where most of us spend holidays. Yet, it is the sharks’ domain and has been for 400 million years. Considering there is an average of five to fifteen fatalities annually around the world, according to the International Shark Attack File, it is hard for me to call them “maneaters” and “human-killers.” The Government is lobbying to implement the cull for an additional three years. Surely there is a solution that will benefit us both without taking these drastic inhumane measures.