Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, stated the following:

"The world's oceans are key to sustaining life on the planet. The ocean constitutes a conduit for ninety per cent of the world trade, and for connecting people, markets and livelihoods. In light of the ocean's interconnectedness, all nations of the world should strive to make the oceans places of safety and sustainability of maritime activities for all humankind…. Humans, however, have put the oceans under risk of irreversible damage by over-fishing, climate change and ocean acidification (from absorbed carbon emissions), increasing pollution, unsustainable coastal area development, and unwanted impacts from resource extraction, resulting in loss of biodiversity, decreased abundance of species, damage to habitats and loss of ecological functions."

 

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982 and its mission is to “[lay] down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources.” Therefore, we request that International action be taken in the matter of the Shark Cull Policy in Western Australia, Queensland’s Shark Control Program and New South Wales’ Shark Meshing Program; all of which are indiscriminately killing sharks and other essential species of the marine ecosystem.

 

The Shark Cull Policy in Western Australia has been established in response of the death of seven people within a period of three years. The Western Australian government introduced shark-kill zones off parts of the WA coast. As part of the program, to run until April 30, any tiger, bull or great white shark longer than three meters caught on the hooks is shot dead.  In recent days, the Western Australian government has asked Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, through a 149-page document, to continue the program for 3 more years. In this submission, the Western Australia government proposes to operate the shark-kill zones between November and April each year, until April 2017. Document: https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au/seven-day-comment-on-referrals/western-australian-shark-hazard-mitigation-drum-li 

 

Please read scientists’ opinions on the matter:

 

* “100 scientists unite to oppose WA shark cull” http://greens.org.au/news/100-scientists-unite-oppose-wa-shark-cull  

 

On the other hand, Queensland, Australia, employs the “Shark Control Program” which is supposed to minimize the threat of shark attacks on humans in particular locations. The program was launched in 1962 and it currently relies on over 360 drumlines and 30 nets. http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/services/shark-control-program

 

 

Finally, New South Wales' (NSW) Australia, utilizes a "Shark Meshing Program" which is a lethal shark mitigation policy that has been in place since 1937. It is managed by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) fisheries NSW, contractors (fishers) carry out the program. The nets are set on 51 most popular beaches from Newcastle to Wollongong. The nets are 150m long and 6m high and are set in 10-12metres of water. Sharks are able to swim over them and around them. The nets are random and indiscriminate killers of marine life around 17,000 marine animals have been caught in shark nets in NSW.

 

Many petitions, some started by shark biologists and experts, have been ignored by the governments; meanwhile our ocean ecosystem is suffering a great loss with each shark death.

 

 The case against these practices:

 

A- WESTERN AUSTRALIA SHARK CULL POLICY:

 

(1) Any great white shark, tiger shark or bull shark longer than three metres caught on drum lines set by a commercial fisherman in the South West region or by the Department of Fisheries in the metropolitan area will be shot.

 

(2)  The initial ‘trial’ shark cull has been a failure. In fact, the first shark killed under the cull was improperly identified by the contractor (fisherman) as a Bull Shark, when it was clearly a Tiger Shark; an untrained eye could have made a correct identification of the species just by looking at the picture.

 

(3) Being apex predators, sharks’ roles are vital to keep the health of the ocean in balance. Removing too many sharks from an ecosystem can lead to a monumental shift in the equilibrium between predators and prey all the way through the food chain. Even the country of South Africa warned a spokesman for South Africa’s department of environmental affairs told Guardian Australia that “extractive activities focused on shared stocks may have local implications” for shark species that visit South African waters, such as the great white.” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/shark-cull-could-impact-shark-migration-south-africa-warns )

 

(4) Baited hooks used to kill sharks present an unacceptable risk to other marine life including turtles, dolphins and other non-target sharks; including the critically endangered grey nurse shark. Several of the other species are also protected under the EPBC Act.

 

(5) The targeted species, Great White Sharks, Bull Sharks and Tiger Sharks, are protected under various State and Commonwealth Laws. Section 2.4 of the proposal document highlights the importance of the white shark, and a need to understand populations and nursery aggregations. However destruction of immature (3m) and mature (>4.5m) females via drumlines is contradictory to this aim (see 5.2.1 of the Shark Cull Policy review document)

 

(6) Although Great White Sharks are listed as "vulnerable" under Australia's environment laws and are also protected under the international Convention for Migratory Species, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has waved through the West Australian government's controversial plan to catch and kill sharks to protect swimmers, exempting it from national environment laws.

 

(7) The Department of Fisheries has a conflict of interest in regulating this activity as well as implementing the cull, either directly or via contractors. In Section 2.1 of the proposal document, the ability for the Contractor to use dead, caught sharks for bait directly compromises the decision by the Contractor concerning a caught shark’s health, considering that he can reduce bait cost by using dead shark.

 

(8) The document says that the EPA’s Marine Megafauna objectives could be met given the limited duration of the drumlining. However, three years does not constitute limited duration. This section also fails to address many the public opinion polls and demonstrations against the shark cull.

 

(9) The document also highlights research suggesting a WA Great White Shark population of several thousand. There is no source for this research, and has been refuted by (Towner et al 2013, 10.1371/journal.pone.0066035) among others.

 

(10) The background to the proposal highlights the purpose of the drum-lining activity is to reduce shark incident fatality following a knee-jerk reaction to shark incident statistics concerning 2013. So far the measures have failed to catch a white shark – the only shark implicated in any of the fatalities, and indeed the only shark thus implicated in the last 50 years. Recent statistics concerning fatal shark incidents over the last few years have averaged around this mark, showing that the call for this measure at this juncture is unnecessary.

 

(11) Attachment 8) Metro: 6 undersize tiger sharks found dead on hooks, two non-target species caught (total = 11%). Only 15% over 3m. SouthWest: 4 under-sized tiger sharks found dead, 2 non-target species (mako) found dead, spinner shark also caught (total = 21%). Of those sharks released alive, there is absolutely no indication of their health at the time of release. Upon release, sharks should initially be aided to ensure adequate water flow over the gills, up to a point they are fully capable of swimming on their own.

 

(12) Non-lethal methods such as early detection, alarm systems, community education and increased scientific research should be much higher priorities than the indiscriminate killing of sharks and other marine animals.

 

(13) Surfers, shark –attack survivors, shark –attack victims’ families, international celebrities,  as well as many environmental organizations, scientists and experts disprove of the Shark Cull Policy. Polls, petitions and protests have shown the dislike also from citizens all over the world calling for an end to this policy; all pleas to stop the cull have been ignored by Mr. Barnett and his Cabinet. 

 

(14)  Dr. Ryan Kempster, a shark biologist at the University of Western Australia and founder of Support Our Sharks, drafted an open letter to the WA Government calling on them to reconsider this policy. The letter was signed by over 100 shark scientists and professionals who work with sharks; all signers oppose the Shark Cull Policy.  http://www.supportoursharks.com/en/News/Miscellaneous/Articles/20131223/Shark_Experts_Oppose_WA_Shark_Cull_Policy.htm#sthash.qQx4FlX2.dpuf  (PDF document of the letter: http://www.supportoursharks.com/Open_Letter_on_WA_Shark_Policy.pdf ) 

 

(15) Shark biologist Dr. Barbara Wueringer, started a public petition called “The Australian Senate: Prevent proactive killing of white sharks in Australia” which has gathered more than 88,600 signatures (as of April 18, 2014) from people opposed to the policy. (See petition here: http://www.change.org/petitions/the-australian-senate-prevent-proactive-killing-of-white-sharks-in-australia-2)

 

(16) The Senate has passed an Australian Greens motion condemning WA's catch and kill shark policy, and has called on Environment Minister Greg Hunt to revoke the exemption enabling the cull to take place. In it: "The Environment Minister has a responsibility to protect great white sharks and other marine life and should not have exempted this cull from the EPBC Act. I call on him to revoke the exemption and assess this flawed policy.” Senator Rachel Siewert (http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/senate-condemns-wa-shark-cull)

 

(17) Sharks that qualify to be killed suffer slow, cruel deaths due to lack of proper euthanizing methods. Some have to be shot multiple times before they finally expire. 

 

(18) Sharks that do not qualify to be killed are being risked for death given the long time they spend in the lines, improper ventilation being given by non-expert fishermen and the obvious stress. Videos taken have shown improper ventilation of the sharks while being measured on the boats. Some of the sharks are lying on hoses, the men are holding end of hose wetting down the sharks’ bodies instead of irrigating the gills. Some other sharks have been pictured headfirst on downward angle; the water clearly appears to be gushing back out the mouth. 

 

(19) Although these non-qualifying sharks are freed, there is no way of confirming that they survived after being freed. Pictures show that the sharks are not properly irrigated to ensure that they survive once released. Depending on the length of exposure, the sharks will enter a coma like state, and hence when released "alive" they sink to the bottom and die unless water flows over their gills. The sharks, once caught, should be returned to the water immediately and not endure prolonged exposure to air and sun. These are waterborne creates and will dehydrate much faster than we will as we can regulate our body temperature and location. 

 

Most of these sharks have been hooked for hours and most are bleeding profusely when released. (For actual footage please watch: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605764/Tiger-shark-waits-15-minutes-die-cull.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490#v-3473939917001) 

 

(20) The dead sharks’ carcasses are dragged by the fishermen and discarded at sea; this practice creates more risk of other sharks being attracted to the area for food. In fact, this practice would attract sharks that would otherwise not be there.

 

(21) “With no evidence that culls make people safer and strong opposition from many fronts, why would the WA government adopt this policy? Christopher Neff, a PhD student at the University of Sydney who studies how shark bites influence shark conservation policy, has a theory: ‘The decision to move ahead with this drum line–shotgun policy is about trying to boost public confidence by killing sharks. This is about politics, not reducing risk, and the result is an unsound public policy that provides a false sense of security,’ Neff says”. (Shiffman, 2014 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiger-shark-shot-and-dumped-at-sea-as-cull-begins-in-western-australia/)

 

(22) A poll released in late January 2014 shows that 80% of Australians are opposed to the government's plans. 

 

B- QUEENSLAND’S SHARK CONTROL PROGRAM:

Information Links:

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/services/shark-control-program

http://sharkyear.com/2014/the-shark-control-program-in-queensland-australia.html

 

 

(1) All the environmental reasons mentioned above against the Western Australia Shark Cull Policy can be applied to Queensland’s Shark Control Program.  The environmental impact of these programs can’t be calculated. The discriminatory killing of shark species should be addressed as well as the killing of other species as a result of bycatch.

 

(2) Shark catch numbers from 2001- 2013 (XLS document): http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/services/shark-control-program/catch-numbers

 

 

(3) Impact on other marine animals: http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/services/shark-control-program/impact-on-other-marine-animals

 

 

(4) Please refer to this article by Prof. Jessica Meeuwig, The University of Western Australia: http://supportoursharks.com/en/News/Miscellaneous/Articles/20140228/Queensland_Drum_Lines.htm 

 

C- NEW SOUTH WALES’ SHARK MESHING PROGRAM:

 

(1) The nets do not keep people safe from sharks. Shark / human interactions have occurred on beaches where shark nets are in place. The 2009 DPI fisheries review into the SMP stated that “the rate of shark attack has remained the same both before and after meshing commenced”. 

 

(2) In contradiction to this the DPI fisheries NSW has claimed that “the SMP has been effective at providing a safer environment for swimmers” however the NSW fisheries scientific committee (FSC) which is tasked with critiquing the program from a scientific and legal standpoint has stated that “this statement is unsubstantiated because it is not based on a scientific comparison between meshed and unmeshed beaches, of shark numbers, interactions or attacks, The FSC requests that the SMP remove the statement” from the previous four annual reports of the SMP which is has failed to do.

 

(3) Fatal shark incidents are tragic events however with increasing medical technology and quick response first aid the vast majority of shark incidents are survivable – this was not the case back in the 1930’s when the NSW program was first put in place. Sharks are in their natural habitat and statistically the chances of being bitten by one are extremely low. Sharks kill on average 5 people worldwide per year, however people kill over 100 million sharks per year. 

 

(4) Many of the animals caught in beach nets are now considered endangered as such the SMP is listed as a key threatening process for the following marine animals since 2003: humpback, minke and Southern right whales, Australian fur seals, dugongs and three species of endangered marine turtles, critically endangered grey nurse sharks and vulnerable great white sharks. Killing endangered animals in their ocean home for the purposes of increasing the safety to people who are visitors is unacceptable in this day and age.

 

(5) Fisheries Scientific Committee recommendation to list the SMP as a key threatening process under the fisheries management Act 1994 and the Threatened species conservation Act 1995. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/208319/FR24-shark-meshing.pdf

 

(6) NSW DPI Fisheries website and link to all publications relating to the Shark Meshing Program:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/sharksmart/meshing  

 

D- SYNOPSIS OF LAWS BEING VIOLATED IN AUSTRALIA’S SHARK PROGRAMS:

(Information for this section provided by Mr. Eric Brush)

*NOTE: The 2 EPBC Act laws (Sect 209 & Sect 212) are temporarily suspended by Greg Hunt after being given approval by Tony Abbott until April 1st to protect Barnett. Here they are: 15 NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL laws being BROKEN by Mr. Barnett:

 

- COUNT 1). Violation of the EPBC Act of 1999. SECT. 209

 

- COUNT 2). Violation of UNCLOS and Fish Stocks Agreement.

 

- COUNT 3). Violation of the UN FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks)

 

- COUNT 4). Violation of the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species.

 

- COUNT 5). Violation of CITES Appendix III

 

- COUNT 6). Violation of Section 3 Article 21 of the United Nations World Charter for Nature.

 

- COUNT 7). Violation of the Convention of Migratory Species.

 

- COUNT 8. Violation of the ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 212

 

- COUNT 9). Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks.

 

- COUNT 10). Violation of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 – Western Australia

 

- COUNT 11). Violation of the World Heritage Convention – 1975

 

- COUNT 12). Violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity – 1992

 

- COUNT 13). Violation of the Endangered Species Protection Act – 1993

 

- COUNT 14). Violation of the Australian Wildlife Protection Act – 1998

 

- COUNT15). In addition to environmental abuses, intentional misdirection of the public to facilitate profit, fraudulent actions toward tourists and Australian citizens in perpetuating a false sense of security, Norman Moore and Colin Barnett are both charged with public safety violations and public endangerment by attracting sharks to tourist beaches and regions through the use of drum lines, as well as setting up potentially lethal encounter situations especially with Bull sharks, Tiger sharks, and White sharks by triggering a feeding and scavenging response in these species and within proximity of the public as a whole. The laws of Australia are very clear on the matter of public endangerment and the state of Western Australia has SPECIFICALLY enacted General Endangerment Offenses Articles with a blatant and intentional disregard for public safety.

 

* For those who may not be familiar with this legal accord:

ARTICLES

General Endangerment Offences:

CMV

CLARKSON

 

Four Australian stated territories (including Western Australia) employ General Endangerment Offences while the remaining Australian jurisdictions and English law only criminalize specific dangerous activities.

 

The content of criminal law and the structure of its offences are widely accepted as being informed by JS Mill's harm principle.' Conduct should be criminalized if it causes harm to others.There has also been a wide acceptance that the definition of 'harm' for this purpose must include the risk of harm, and so, for example, no one seriously questions that a law of attempt is justifiable. Further, many offences criminalize conduct that has the potential to cause harm even if that harm was not intended. These are known as risk-taking or endangerment offences. Such offences are justified on the basis that they facilitate early intervention by the police or other enforcement authorities before harm materializes.

 

In terms of the well-established purposes of punishment, people need to be deterred from performing dangerous acts. Such persons have also demonstrated their dangerousness and need for incapacitation and rehabilitation.

 

E- FURTHER READS:  

 

* Shark cull opposition intensifies in Australia:

http://article.wn.com/view/2014/02/03/Shark_cull_opposition_intensifies_in_Australia/

 

* Shot three times before taking 15 minutes to die: Environmentalists' anger over shark cull in Western Australia:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605764/Tiger-shark-waits-15-minutes-die-cull.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490#v-3473939917001

 

 * Shark cull could harm migration, South Africa warns WA:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/shark-cull-could-impact-shark-migration-south-africa-warns

 

*Killers on the loose: how Australia ignores science to cull vulnerable sharks:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/07/killers-on-the-loose-how-australia-ignores-science-to-cull-vulnerable-sharks

 

 *Editorial: Shark Cull indefensible:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-shark-cull-indefensible/story-fnj4f64i-1226816113327 

 

* Shark victim's mother takes court action against shark cull:

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/shark-victims-mother-takes-court-action-against-shark-cull-20140226-33hfx.html

 

* Shark attack victim Sam Kellett would not want any cull says his Adelaide family, after weekend tragedy off Edithburgh:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/shark-attack-victim-sam-kellett-no-cull-family-statement/5249396

 

 * Baby dolphin dies after getting trapped in shark nets:

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/kayaker-questions-efficacy-of-nets/2223295/

 

* Driving to beach a bigger risk than sharks, says expert:

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/expert-opinion-driving-to-beach-riskier-than-shark/2111818/

 

* Humpback whale spotted in Bay tangled in shark net:

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/whale-dragging-a-net/1992013/ 

 

* Humpback whale calf died this season in late 2013 in a shark net off Mona Vale beach:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/22/humpback-whale-calf-dies-in-shark-net-on-sydney-beach

 

 

D- VIDEOS:

 

* Ending WA's Shark Cull - WA Senator Rachel Siewert, Australian Greens marine spokesperson, addresses the Senate on the need for the federal government to revoke the exemption allowing WA's shark cull to proceed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwP8vD6Czc

 

* More questions about WA's cruel shark cull - Senator Rachel Siewert, Australian Greens marine spokesperson, questions the Federal Environment Department about the WA shark cull:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd5izGranbM

 

*Senator Louise Pratt - Senator Pratt speaking against the Western Australian Shark Cull:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etTKWrlipZ4 

 

* KILL AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT, NOT AUSTRALIAN SHARKS!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl8a7U9yRg8   

 

* Shark Cull Protests Underway at Beaches across Western Australia and the Nation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inj8_U7qaVI 

 

* Shark Attack Victim Against Shark Cull at Manly Beach Rally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te1IwLJ566A 

 

E- CONCLUSION:

 

For the reasons mentioned above, we, the undersigned, ask the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources to intervene urgently and, if necessary, ask the International Court of Justice to intervene in these urgent issues and, under the Law of the Sea, prevent the Western Australian government from continuing the practice of the Shark Cull program, the government of Queensland from continuing the practice of the Shark Control Program and the government of New South Wales form continuing with the Shark Meshing Program. These practices are environmentally unacceptable.

The damage being done by these three “policies” is irreversible. Therefore, we have concluded that a higher legal entity needs to intervene urgently in order to protect these sharks and the other species being affected in order to preserve the oceans’ ecosystem; which is already in extreme danger.